4.5 Article

Climate sensitive size-dependent survival in tropical trees

期刊

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 2, 期 9, 页码 1436-1442

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0626-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [DEB-1046113]
  2. Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments (NGEE-Tropics) project - US Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  3. Los Alamos National Laboratory
  4. [NSF - EF1137366]
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1545761] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Survival rates of large trees determine forest biomass dynamics. Survival rates of small trees have been linked to mechanisms that maintain biodiversity across tropical forests. How species survival rates change with size offers insight into the links between biodiversity and ecosystem function across tropical forests. We tested patterns of size-dependent tree survival across the tropics using data from 1,781 species and over 2 million individuals to assess whether tropical forests can be characterized by size-dependent life-history survival strategies. We found that species were classifiable into four 'survival modes' that explain life-history variation that shapes carbon cycling and the relative abundance within forests. Frequently collected functional traits, such as wood density, leaf mass per area and seed mass, were not generally predictive of the survival modes of species. Mean annual temperature and cumulative water deficit predicted the proportion of biomass of survival modes, indicating important links between evolutionary strategies, climate and carbon cycling. The application of survival modes in demographic simulations predicted biomass change across forest sites. Our results reveal globally identifiable size-dependent survival strategies that differ across diverse systems in a consistent way. The abundance of survival modes and interaction with climate ultimately determine forest structure, carbon storage in biomass and future forest trajectories.

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