3.9 Article

Vegetation types of the upper Madeira River in Rondnia, Brazil

期刊

BRITTONIA
卷 69, 期 4, 页码 423-446

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12228-017-9505-1

关键词

Amazon; Campinarana; Soil fertility; Terra firme forest; Varzea; Water table

资金

  1. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior)
  2. Energia Sustentavel do Brasil-ESBR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We characterize the vegetation types of the upper basin of the Madeira River in the Brazilan state of Rondnia, a biodiverse region with elevated rates of habitat loss. Vegetation and environmental parameters were recorded from 37 observation points distributed along and near a 160 km stretch of the Madeira River and representing the range of regional environments. Analysis of structure and floristic variables, as well as associated edaphic attributes and water table fluctuation, permitted recognition of five main vegetation types and seven subtypes. Open Ombrophilous Forest was the most frequently encountered vegetation type and occurred on well-drained, nutrient-poor soils, whereas Dense Ombrophilous Forest was seldom recorded. Alluvial Ombrophilous Forests (varzea) were found along a narrow strip of land along the banks of the Madeira River on the most fertile soils in the study area. Semideciduous Forests were found on small areas of rocky outcrops with shallow soils and reduced water availability during the dry season. Campinaranas, which range from open savanna physiognomies to closed canopy forests, were found to be a key environment in the lowlands south of the Madeira River on silty hydromorphic soils, where they harbor a peculiar flora tolerant of flooding during the rainy season. Our classification of the main vegetation types in the upper Madeira River illuminates a high degree of floristic and environmental heterogeneity in a highly threatened region. Our results will be useful for designing conservation strategies aimed at protecting the full range of floristic diversity present in the region.

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