4.0 Article

Enrichment planting does not improve tree restoration when compared with natural regeneration in a former pine plantation in Kibale National Park, Uganda

期刊

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 650-657

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.01016.x

关键词

arrested succession; enrichment planting; Kibale National Park; pine plantations; regeneration; restoration

类别

资金

  1. Canada Research Chairs Program
  2. Wildlife Conservation Society
  3. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  4. Committee on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Islamabad, Pakistan
  5. International Foundation for Science, Stockholm, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given the high rates of deforestation and subsequent land abandonment, there are increasing calls to reforest degraded lands; however, many areas are in a state of arrested succession. Plantations can break arrested succession and the sale of timber can pay for restoration efforts. However, if the harvest damages native regeneration, it may be necessary to intervene with enrichment planting. Unfortunately, it is not clear when intervention is necessary. Here, we document the rate of biomass accumulation of planted seedlings relative to natural regeneration in a harvested plantation in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We established two 2-ha plots and in one, we planted 100 seedlings of each of four native species, and we monitored all tree regeneration in this area and the control plot. After 4 years, naturally regenerating trees were much taller, larger and more common than the planted seedlings. Species richness and two nonparametric estimators of richness were comparable between the plots. The cumulative biomass of planted seedlings accounted for 0.04% of the total above-ground tree biomass. The use of plantations facilitated the growth of indigenous trees, and enrichment planting subsequent to harvesting was not necessary to obtain a rich tree community with a large number of new recruits.

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

4.0
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