4.6 Article

Leaf and shoot water content and leaf dry matter content of Mediterranean woody species with different post-fire regenerative strategies

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 545-554

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcl284

关键词

functional traits; leaf dry matter content; Mediterranean plants; post-fire; regenerative strategy; relative water content; resprouter; seeder; woody species

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims Post-fire regeneration is a key process in Mediterranean shrubland dynamics, strongly determining the functional properties of the community. In this study, a test is carried out to deteremine whether there is co-variation between species regenerative types and functional attributes related to water use. Methods An analysis was made of the seasonal variations in leaf relative water content (RWC), leaf dry matter content (LDMC), leaf moisture (LM) and live fine fuel moisture (LFFM) in 30 woody species of a coastal shrubland, with different post-fire regenerative strategies (seeding, resprouting or both). Key Results RWC results suggest that the studied resprouters have more efficient mechanisms to reduce water losses and maintain water supply between seasons. In contrast, seeders are more drought tolerant. LDMC is higher in resprouters over the course of the year, suggesting a more efficient conservation of nutrients. The weight of the phylogenetic constraint to understand differences between regenerative strategies tends to be important for LDMC, while it is not the case for variables such as RWC. Conclusions Groups of species with different post-fire regenerative strategies (seeders and resprouters) have different functional traits related to water use. In addition to the role of phylogenetical constraints, these differences are also likely to be related to the respective life history characteristics. Therefore, the presence and abundance of species with different post-fire regenerative responses influence the functional properties of the communities.

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

4.6
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