4.2 Article

Spatial autocorrelation shapes liana distribution better than topography and host tree properties in a subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest in SW China

期刊

BIOTROPICA
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 301-308

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/btp.13043

关键词

climbing mechanism; dispersal limitation; habitat preference; spatial process; variation partitioning

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31870385, 31470470]
  2. CAS 135 program [2017XTBG-F01]
  3. CAS Light of West China program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that in high elevation subtropical forests in Southwest China, the spatial distribution of lianas is mainly influenced by spatial autocorrelation, with host trees and topography playing a smaller role in explaining their spatial distribution.
Lianas are an important component of subtropical forests, but the mechanisms underlying their spatial distribution patterns have received relatively little attention. Here, we selected 12 most abundant liana species, constituting up to 96.9% of the total liana stems, in a 20-ha plot in a subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest at 2472-2628 m elevation in SW China. Combining data on topography (convexity, slope, aspect, and elevation) and host trees (density and size) of the plot, we addressed how liana distribution is shaped by host tree properties, topography and spatial autocorrelation by using principal coordinates of neighbor matrices (PCNM) analysis. We found that lianas had an aggregated distribution based on the Ripley's K function. At the community level, PCNM analysis showed that spatial autocorrelation explained 43% variance in liana spatial distribution. Host trees and topography explained 4% and 18% of the variance, but less than 1% variance after taking spatial autocorrelation into consideration. A similar trend was found at the species level. These results indicate that spatial autocorrelation might be the most important factor shaping liana spatial distribution in subtropical forest at high elevation.

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