4.5 Article

Transition from Fire-Dependent Open Forests: Alternative Ecosystem States in the Southeastern United States

期刊

DIVERSITY-BASEL
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/d13090411

关键词

disturbance; fire suppression; foundation; pine; plantation; pyrodiversity; savanna; woodland

资金

  1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land use and fire exclusion have had significant impacts on ecosystems worldwide, leading to alternative ecosystem states. Examples from the southeastern United States demonstrate the decline of fire-dependent open pine and pine-oak forests, with dynamics shifting towards replacement forests.
Land use and fire exclusion have influenced ecosystems worldwide, resulting in alternative ecosystem states. Here, I provide two examples from the southeastern United States of fire-dependent open pine and pine-oak forest loss and examine dynamics of the replacement forests, given continued long-term declines in foundation longleaf (Pinus palustris) and shortleaf (Pinus echinata) pines and recent increases in commercial loblolly (Pinus taeda) and slash (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii) pines. Shortleaf pine-oak forest historically may have been dominant on about 32 to 38 million ha, a provisional estimate based on historical composition of 75% of all trees, and has decreased to about 2.5 million ha currently; shortleaf pine now is 3% of all trees in the northern province. Longleaf pine forest decreased from about 30 million ha, totaling 75% of all trees, to 1.3 million ha and 3% of all trees in contemporary forests of the southern province. The initial transition from open pine ecosystems to closed forests, primarily comprised of broadleaf species, was countered by conversion to loblolly and slash pine plantations. Loblolly pine now accounts for 37% of all trees. Loss of fire-dependent ecosystems and their foundation tree species affect associated biodiversity, or the species that succeed under fire disturbance.

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