4.7 Article

Amazon Rain Forest Succession: Stochasticity or Land-Use Legacy?

期刊

BIOSCIENCE
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 849-861

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biv108

关键词

secondary succession; forest regeneration; alternative pathways; land-use history; stochastic processes

类别

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM)
  4. US National Science Foundation [DEB-0639114, DEB-1147434]
  5. Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia dos Servicos Ambientais da Amazonia (INCT/Servamb)
  6. Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP)
  7. Division Of Environmental Biology
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [1147434] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land-use practices can dramatically shift the trajectories of rain forest recovery. In a 25-year study, Amazon rain forest regenerated following deforestation as long as seed availability and seedling recruitment were not interrupted. In contrast, rain forest converted to cattle pastures via cutting and burning prior to abandonment diverted succession, leading to highly simplified stands dominated by a single genus. Annual fires eliminated seedlings, saplings, coppice, and seeds in the soil, except for several Vismia species. Once established, Vismia regenerated by continual resprouting and resisted the establishment of other rain forest species, especially the normal suite of pioneers. Through time, succession both in abandoned clearcuts and pastures increased in stem density and biomass; however, species accumulation and ecosystem services were limited in pastures when compared with those in abandoned clearcuts. Therefore, prescribed burning to maintain pastureland leaves a legacy that is not readily extinguished, whereas abandoning clearcuts engenders an accelerated rain forest regeneration.

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

4.7
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