4.5 Article

VARIATION AMONG INDIVIDUALS IN CONE PRODUCTION IN PINUS PALUSTRIS (PINACEAE)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 640-645

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1100339

关键词

Canopy status; fire; heterogeneity; hurdle model; longleaf pine; reproduction; variation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0614468]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1120330] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Premise of the study: Reproductive output varies considerably among individuals within plant populations, and this is especially so in cone production of conifers. While this variation can have substantial effects on populations, little is known about its magnitude or causes. Methods: We studied variation in cone production for 2 years within a population of Pinus palustris Mill. (longleaf pine; Pinaceae). Using hurdle models, we evaluated the importance of burn treatments, tree size (dbh), canopy status (open, dominant, subordinate), and number of conspecific neighbors within 4 m (N-4). Key results: Cone production of individuals-even after accounting for other variables-was strongly correlated between years. Trees in plots burned every 1, 2, or 5 years produced more cones than those burned every 7 years, or unburned. Larger trees tend to produce more cones, but the large effects of the other factors studied caused substantial scatter in the dbh-cone number relationship. Among trees in the open, dbh had little explanatory power. Subordinate trees with three neighbors produced no cones. Conclusions: Tree size alone was a weak predictor of cone production. Interactions with neighbors play an important role in generating reproductive heterogeneity, and must be accounted for when relating cone production to size. The strong between-year correlation, together with the large variance in cone production among trees without neighbors, suggests that still more of the variance may be explainable, but requires factors outside of our study.

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