4.6 Article

An individual-based forest model links canopy dynamics and shade tolerances along a soil moisture gradient

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150589

关键词

individual-based forest model; forest succession; shade tolerance; gap dynamics; crown competition; root competition; moisture gradient

资金

  1. Simons Foundation [283770]
  2. Washington State University New Faculty SEED grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding how forested ecosystems respond to climatic changes is a challenging problem as forest self-organization occurs simultaneously across multiple scales. Here, we explore the hypothesis that soil water availability shapes above-ground competition and gap dynamics, and ultimately alters the dominance of shade tolerant and intolerant species along the moisture gradient. We adapt a spatially explicit individual-based model with simultaneous crown and root competitions. Simulations show that the transition from xeric to mesic soils is accompanied by an increase in shade-tolerant species similar to the patterns documented in the North American forests. This transition is accompanied by a change from water to sunlight competitions, and happens at three successive stages: (i) mostly water-limited parkland, (ii) simultaneously water-and sunlight-limited closed canopy forests featuring a very sparse understory, and (iii) mostly sunlight-limited forests with a populated understory. This pattern is caused by contrasting successional dynamics that favour either shade-tolerant or shade-intolerant species, depending on soil moisture and understory density. This work demonstrates that forest patterns along environmental gradients can emerge from spatial competition without physiological trade-offs between shade and growth tolerance. Mechanistic understanding of population processes involved in the forest-parkland-desert transition will improve our ability to explain species distributions and predict forest responses to climatic changes.

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

4.6
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