4.7 Article

Acorn dispersal and predation patterns of four tree species by wood mice in abandoned cut-over land

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 250, 期 3, 页码 187-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.014

关键词

acorn dispersal; broad-leaved forest; deciduous forest; Castanea crenata; Juglans mandshurica var. sieboldiana; post-dispersal acom predation; Quercus serrata; Quercus crispula

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared patterns of acorn dispersal and predation by wood mice among four tree species (Quercus serrata, Quercus crispula, Castanea crenata, and Juglans mandshurica var. sieboldiana) that are abundant in cool temperate woodlands. We devised an acorn dispersal experiment using 400 magnet-inserted acorns and a magnetic locator in a 1.8-ha study plot, which spanned a cut-over area and an adjacent deciduous forest. Ten wire mesh baskets, each containing 40 acorns (10 acorns per species), were placed on the border between these two habitat types. About 13.0% (n = 52) of the total acorns remained in the baskets, while 77.3% (n = 309) were dispersed throughout the study plot and subsequently retrieved using the magnetic locator. Microhabitat, distance, and burial depth of transported acorns were significantly different among species. In the cut-over area, J. mandshurica var. sieboldiana acorns were dispersed under fallen trees or branches and near stumps, and were buried deeply in the soil. Dispersal distances of J mandshurica var. sieboldiana acorns were significantly greater than those of Q. serrata acorns. The number and microhabitat of transported acorns significantly differed between habitat types. J. mandshurica var. sieboldiana acorns were dispersed in the cut-over area rather than in the forest. For all four species, the numbers of acorns delivered to fallen trees or branches, stumps, and crumbled soil with overhang under any vegetation type were greater in the cut-over area than in the forest. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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