4.7 Review

Assessing the role of megafauna in tropical forest ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles - the potential of vegetation models

期刊

ECOGRAPHY
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 1934-1954

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.03309

关键词

plant-animal interactions; ecosystem functioning; carbon cycle

资金

  1. Univ. of Tuscia Doctoral School in Science, Technology and Biotechnology for Sustainability
  2. Univ. of Molise Forestry Lab
  3. FFU grant [13-08KU]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Megafauna (terrestrial vertebrate herbivores > 5 kg) can have disproportionate direct and indirect effects on forest structure, function, and biogeochemical cycles. We reviewed the literature investigating these effects on tropical forest dynamics and biogeochemical cycles in relation to ecology, paleoecology, and vegetation modelling. We highlight the limitations of field-based studies in evaluating the long-term consequences of loss of megafauna. These limitations are due to inherent space-time restrictions of field-studies and a research focus on seed dispersal services provided by large animals. We further present evidence of a research gap concerning the role of megafauna in carbon cycling in tropical ecosystems. Specifically, changes in aboveground biomass might not be noticeable in short-term studies because of slow vegetation dynamics requiring decades to respond to disturbance (i.e. defaunation). Nutrient cycling has received even less attention in relation to the role of megafauna in tropical forests. We present an approach to investigate the effects of megafauna from new perspectives and with various tools (notably, vegetation models), which can simulate long-term dynamics in different environmental and megafauna density scenarios. Vegetation models could facilitate interaction between plant-animal ecology and biogeochemistry research. We present practical examples on how to integrate plant-animal interactions in vegetation models to further our understanding of the role of large herbivores in tropical 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

4.7
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