3.9 Article

Puyehue-Cordon Caulle eruption of 2011: tephra fall and initial forest responses in the Chilean Andes

期刊

BOSQUE
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 85-96

出版社

UNIV AUSTRAL CHILE, FAC CIENCIAS FORESTALES
DOI: 10.4067/S0717-92002016000100009

关键词

forest disturbance; Puyehue-Cordon Caulle; tephra fall; volcanic disturbance

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [0823380, 0917697]
  2. US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station
  3. Center for Climate and Resilience Research (CR)2 [CONICYT/FONDAP/15110009]
  4. Direccion de Investigacion y Desarrollo (DID), Universidad Austral de Chile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2011 eruption in the Puyehue-Cordon Caulle volcanic complex deposited up to 50 cm of tephra in a plume that intersected the crest of the Andes along Route 215, offering an excellent opportunity to study disturbance effects on native forests along a gradient of tephra depth. Our observations focused on short-term, species-level, tree mortality and sprouting and tephra fall effects on foliage and limb fall. More than 80 % of the thickest deposits were composed of a basal, pumice, gravel layer containing individual clasts up to 6 cm in length overlain by finer gravel and capped by several cm of sandy tephra. In a sample of four plots with tephra thickness ranging from 10 to 50 cm, we observed a wide range of tree mortality: about 8 % of stems living at the time of the eruption were killed by 10 cm of tephra fall and 54 % were killed by 50 cm. However, properties of the affected forest, such as species composition, foliage sprouting and retention (deciduous versus evergreen) characteristics, and tree size/age, strongly influenced survival. The sites with 35 and 50 cm thick deposits were dominated by the deciduous tree Nothofagus pumilio, which was leafless in the austral winter, season of the initial phase of the eruption. The evergreen tree N. dombeyi experienced much higher mortality. The low density of the falling pumice particles appeared to cause minimal abrasion of the canopy.

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

3.9
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