4.5 Article

Large trees and dense canopies: key factors for maintaining high epiphytic diversity on trunk bases (bryophytes and lichens) in tropical montane forests

期刊

FORESTRY
卷 88, 期 5, 页码 521-527

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpv022

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja
  2. Secretaria Nacional de Educacion Superior, Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion of Ecuador
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion of Spain (project EPICON) [CGL2010-22049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high richness of epiphytes in moist tropical montane forests is continuously decreasing due to deforestation and habitat loss. Lichens and bryophytes are important components of epiphyte diversity on trunk bases and play an important role in the water balance and nutrient cycling of tropical montane forests. As lichens and bryophytes are very sensitive to microclimatic changes, we hypothesized that their species richness and composition would change with forest alteration. We also expected their response patterns to be different given the capability of lichens to photosynthesize using water vapour. In this study, we assessed the richness and composition of epiphytes (lichens and bryophytes) on the trunk bases of 240 trees in primary and secondary forests of southern Ecuador. We found that diversity was higher in primary forests and lower in monospecific secondary forest stands. Total diversity was negatively affected by habitat loss and by the reduction of canopy cover for bryophytes. Shade epiphytes were replaced by sun epiphytes in open secondary forests. We conclude that lichen and bryophyte diversity of tropical montane forests are negatively affected by the removal of large trees and canopy disruption. The different species compositions of primary and secondary forests and the high number of species exclusive to primary forests indicate that secondary forests are of limited importance in compensating for the loss of non-vascular epiphyte species associated with primary forests.

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