4.3 Article

Effects of bryophytes and grass litter on seedling emergence vary by vertical seed position and seed size

期刊

PLANT ECOLOGY
卷 207, 期 2, 页码 257-268

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11258-009-9670-8

关键词

Mosses; Facilitation; Floodplain; Germination; Grassland; Invasibility

资金

  1. Christiane Lenz-Kuhl
  2. Josef Scholz-vom Hofe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Establishment of plants through seeds is often constrained by the quality of microsites, which is in part controlled by the nature and amount of ground cover. The latter consists of living shoots of vascular plants or bryophytes and/or the dead remains of the dominant species. In the present article, we report the results of a controlled pot experiment with five species characteristic of floodplain grasslands. We manipulated the amounts of grass litter and/or mosses to study (1) differences between ground cover types with respect to their effects on microenvironment and seedling emergence and (2) how these effects interact with seed size and seed sowing position. Increasing amounts of both cover types led to increasing soil humidity, whereas temperature amplitude and illumination were decreased. However, since grass litter decomposed much faster than bryophytes, light conditions for germination under grass litter improved considerably with time. Although seedling emergence varied significantly between species, ground cover types and cover amounts, seed position alone explained about 50% of the variation in the data set. Additionally, we found an important interaction between seed size, seed position and cover type: large-seeded species showed a fitness advantage when seeds were situated beneath a cover, irrespective of cover type, which disappeared when seeds were shed on top of a cover layer. We suggest that this interaction may be ecologically and evolutionarily relevant because it may lead to changes in species composition and diversity of plant communities as a consequence of changes in the amount and type of ground cover.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据