4.5 Article

SEEDLING DYNAMICS AT ELEVATION LIMITS: COMPLEX INTERACTIONS BEYOND SEED AND MICROSITE LIMITATIONS

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 97, 期 11, 页码 1791-1797

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1000248

关键词

alpine plants; Armeria caespitosa; edge populations; habitat suitability; microsite limitation; Plumbaginaceae; seed limitation; seedling emergence; seedling survival

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CGL2009-13190-C03-01, CGL2009-07229]
  2. REMEDINAL2
  3. Madrid Autonomous Government [Orden 3334/04 CAM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Premise of the study: Limited availability of seeds and microsites are important constraints for seedling emergence and survival. However, little is known about population-level feedbacks between seed and microsite limitation and how these relationships vary in contrasting conditions. Focusing on Armeria caespitosa, a high-mountain endemic, we asked whether seedling establishment was simultaneously limited by seed and microsite availability, whether the balance between seed and microsite limitations varied with contrasting environments, and whether seed and microsite limitations interacted with each other. Methods: We studied seedling emergence and survival at the edges of the elevation range of A. caespitosa in central Spain over 4 years. We used mixed linear models and structural equation modeling. Key results: Our results showed that A. caespitosa recruits similar numbers of new seedlings per plot in contrasting environments. Seedling emergence and survival in A. caespitosa were both limited by seed and microsite availability. Habitat suitability (the surrogate of microsite limitation) varied between populations and indirectly affected fertility (the surrogate of seed limitation). Conclusions: Seedling emergence and survival are both seed and microsite limited, there are interactions between seed and microsite limitations, and both factors, which control seedling establishment, and their interconnections, vary among local populations.

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