4.3 Article

Fire severity and nutrient availability do not constrain resprouting in forest shrubs

期刊

PLANT ECOLOGY
卷 212, 期 12, 页码 1967-1978

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11258-011-9956-5

关键词

Comparative ecology; Disturbance; Fire intensity; Functional traits; Persistence niche

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
  3. UNE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plants often survive disturbances such as fire by resprouting which involves having both protection traits and carbohydrate storage capacity. Protection traits not only act directly to insulate meristems but also prevent combustion of carbohydrate stores. Rapid stem growth also allows replenishment of carbohydrate stores ensuring persistence through another event. Resource availability may, however, constrain the ability to develop resilience to high-severity fires through either nutrient limitation or light limitation. We tested whether fire severity influenced resprouting ability of woody plants in two contrasting environments, low nutrient dry sclerophyll forest and more fertile wet sclerophyll forest. We tested which fire protection and growth traits were associated with resprouting ability (27 species) and resprouting vigour (16 species). Fire severity did not limit the ability of most species to resprout in either forest type. There was no generalized protection syndrome for surviving top kill, but combinations of bud protection and growth together with storage capacity appear to drive resprouting ability. In nutrient-limited forests, low specific leaf area (SLA) may reduce stem growth in resprouters, causing more reliance on bud protection through bark thickness. Conversely, in the more fertile forests, where light becomes limiting with time-since-fire, high SLA appears to increase the capacity for rapid stem growth with less emphasis on developing thicker bark. These different syndromes appear to be adaptive as fire severity did not influence survival in either forest type.

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