4.7 Article

Roads limit of seed dispersal and seedling recruitment of Quercus chenii in an urban hillside forest

期刊

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 307-314

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.023

关键词

Direction; Forest fragmentation; Road barriers; Seed dispersal; Seedling recruitment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31400355, 31372212]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paved roads in urban forests cause forest fragmentation and thus reduce animal populations, threaten dispersal and recruitment of animal-dispersed plants. Here, we tracked animal-mediated seed dispersal of Quercus chenii in the urban forest centre and near roadsides to test the effect of paved roads on seed dispersal and recruitment. We conducted experiments in a forest patch in urban areas of Wuhan, China. The forest was dominated by the focal tree species and separated by paved roads. Only two potential seed dispersal animals, one rodent (Niviventer confucianus) and one jay (Garrulus glandarius) were observed in this stand. Seeds were removed farther but not as fast in the forest centre compared to roadsides, while no differences of seed fate, dispersal direction, and seedling establishment were detected between the forest centre and roadsides, indicating the thick vegetation along roadsides provided feeding shelters for small animals. However, when compared with primary forests containing more seed dispersers, seed removal rate in this urban forest fragment was much slower in both forest centre and roadside. Furthermore, due to road barriers, seeds were seldom moved across the paved road and remained in the fragmented stand, reflecting a limited function of seed dispersers. These results suggested paved roads isolated forests into small islands and weakened the ecological function of seed dispersers by impeding long distance seed dispersal. Reintroducing dispersers and building wildlife corridors would be impactful ways to restore urban forest patches.

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