4.2 Article

Seed Rain in Abandoned Clearings in a Lowland Evergreen Rain Forest in Southern Thailand

期刊

TROPICAL CONSERVATION SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 572-585

出版社

TROPICAL CONSERVATION SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1177/194008291400700314

关键词

bats; birds; edge effects; forest restoration; seed dispersal

资金

  1. BRT (The Biodiversity Research and Training Program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some forest restoration techniques treat remnant shrubs as competitors of newly planted tree seedlings, often clearing shrubs and weeds before trees are planted, but such plants may have significant value in attracting seed dispersers. In this study we examined the role of remnant trees and shrubs in grassland as a tool for passive and low cost ecological restoration. We determined the species density and abundance of both seed rain and its vertebrate dispersers in relation to different microhabitats (shrub-like vs. tree-like vegetation vs. grassland patches) in a 20-ha clearing of weeds mixed with early successional woody vegetation in a lowland evergreen forest in southern Thailand. We quantified seed rain from 60 seed traps placed in each microhabitat, and compared differences in seed abundance and species richness, while also examining the effect of distance from the forest edge. We found that seed rain abundance and seed species richness were significantly different among microhabitats. Seed rain was highest under shrubs, followed by under trees and then grassland, whereas seed species richness was highest under trees, followed by under shrubs, and grassland. Distance from the forest edge affected seed rain abundance under trees only. Birds (bulbuls and flowerpeckers) were the main dispersers of seeds at trees and shrubs respectively, while bats were the primary dispersers for the grassland patches. Different seed disperser groups appear to have complementary roles, such that sites containing a mixture of vegetation types including early successional vegetation may attract significantly more seed dispersers.

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

4.2
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