4.6 Article

The Fate of the Missing Spores - Patterns of Realized Dispersal beyond the Closest Vicinity of a Sporulating Moss

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041987

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish research council Formas [217-2008-1193]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well-known that many species with small diaspores can disperse far during extended temporal scales (many years). However, studies on short temporal scales usually only cover short distances (in, e.g., bryophytes up to 15 m). By using a novel experimental design, studying the realized dispersal, we extend this range by almost two orders of magnitude. We recorded establishment of the fast-growing moss Discelium nudum on introduced suitable substrates, placed around a translocated, sporulating mother colony. Around 2,000 pots with acidic clay were placed at different distances between 5 m and 600 m, in four directions, on a raised bog, with increased pot numbers with distance. The experiment was set up in April-May and the realized dispersal (number of colonized pots) was recorded in September. Close to the mother colony (up to 10 m), the mean colonization rates (ratio of colonized pots) exceeded 50%. At distances between 10 and 50 m colonization dropped sharply, but beyond 50 m the mean colonization rates stabilized and hardly changed (1-3%). The estimated density of spores causing establishments at the further distances (2-6 spores/m(2)) was realistic when compared to the estimated spore output from the central colonies. Our study supports calculations from earlier studies, limited to short distances, that a majority of the spores disperse beyond the nearest vicinity of a source. The even colonization pattern at further distances raises interesting questions about under what conditions spores are transported and deposited. However, it is clear that regular establishment is likely at the km-scale for this and many other species with similar spore output and dispersal mechanism.

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

4.6
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