4.5 Article

Defence strategies in African savanna trees

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 187, 期 3, 页码 797-809

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-018-4165-8

关键词

Broad-leaved; Carbon-based secondary metabolites; Fine-leaved; Mammal browsers; Resource availability; Structural defences

类别

资金

  1. CNRS
  2. Andrew W Mellon Foundation
  3. National Centre for Biological Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Southern African savannas are commonly polarised into two broad types based on plant functional types and defences; infertile savannas dominated by broad-leaved trees typically defended by nitrogen-free secondary compounds and fertile savannas dominated by fine-leaved trees defended by structural defences. In this study, we use trait and other data from 15 wooded savanna sites in Southern Africa and ask if broad-leaved and fine-leaved species dominate on nutrient-poor and nutrient-rich soils, respectively. We then test if there is there any evidence for trade-offs in chemical (i.e., condensed tannins and total polyphenols) vs. structural defences on different soil types. We did not find strong evidence for a general divide in fine- vs. broad-leaved savannas according to soil fertility, nor for a simple trade-off between chemical and structural defences. Instead, we found savanna species to cluster into three broad defence strategies: species were high in leaf N and either (A) highly defended by spines and chemicals or (B) only structurally defended, or (C) low in leaf N and chemically defended. Finally, we tested for differences in browser utilisation between soil types and among plant defence strategies and found that browsing by meso-herbivores was higher on nutrient-rich soils and targeted species from groups A and B and avoided C, while browsing by elephants was mostly not affected by soil type or defence strategy. We propose a framework that can be used as a basis for asking strategic questions that will help improve our understanding of plant defences in savannas.

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