4.5 Article

Initial response of riparian plant community structure to clearing of invasive alien plants in Kruger National Park, South Africa

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 485-494

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2008.01.177

关键词

biological invasions; ecosystem repair; exotic plants; diversity; resilience; restoration; working for water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recovery of indigenous species subsequent to the clearing of invasive alien plants (IAPs) is crucial for ecosystem recovery to occur. However, cleared sites are often just left in the hope that revegetation will occur naturally. In riparian areas of Kruger National Park (KNP), the Working for Water (WfW) Programme has cleared IAPs on a regular basis, but little post-clearance monitoring has taken place. Thus investigating short-term effects of IAPs and IAP clearing on plant community diversity and vegetation recovery provided an ideal opportunity to assess feasible targets of natural ecosystem recovery in similar areas. Vegetation was sampled from twelve transects along the Sabie River in and adjacent to the KNP, before (March/April 2006) and after (March 2007) the annual clearing of IAPs by WfW. Rarefied species richness, alpha diversity and evenness of distribution of species all declined with increasing density of IAPs (P < 0.05). There was a mean reduction in IAP density of 80% (S.E +/- 6%) (P=0.002) through the clearing by WfW. After clearing of IAPs, indigenous vegetation densities increased, with herbaceous growth forms showing the largest increase in transects that were previously heavily invaded. Thus, in this system, which is relatively undisturbed by human activities, initial recovery of indigenous vegetation can occur without further restorative interventions. This process is more than likely aided by the continuous clearing of IAPs by WfW as this acts to deplete alien seed banks and maintain IAPs at acceptable and manageable levels. (C) 2008 SAAB. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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