4.7 Article

Vegetation structure, phenology, and regeneration in the natural and anthropogenic tree-fall gaps of a reduced-impact logged subtropical Bolivian forest

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 235, 期 1-3, 页码 186-193

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.011

关键词

disturbance; pioneer; shade-tolerant; selective logging

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced-impact logging is a type of selective logging that incorporates a variety of techniques aimed at lowering levels of damage to the residual stand. In a Bolivian subtropical humid forest we studied differences in gap size, vegetation structure, regeneration and phenology between anthropogenic and natural gaps in a reduced-impact logged and unlogged forest. Harvesting took place between 1 and 4 years previously. Logging gaps were significantly larger than natural gaps (d.f. 1, variance ratio (vr.) 6.38,p = 0.014) and had significantly lower coverage of lianas (d.f. 1, vr. 8.64, p < 0.01). Seedlings were more prevalent in logging gaps than in natural tree-fall gaps (d.f. 1, vr. 13.97, p < 0.001), as were members of the herbaceous genus Heliconia (d.f. 4, vr. 3.05, p = 0.023). In larger gaps microclimatic conditions favour the regeneration of non-commercial pioneer species. We propose that ground disturbance during bole removal causes higher rates of mortality to shade-tolerant species in advanced stages of regeneration. This removes the competitive height advantage needed by shade-tolerant species to compete within gaps, and thus further promotes the opportunity for pioneer species to dominate gap regeneration. These observed differences between anthropogenic and natural tree-fall gaps are of direct importance to forest managers attempting to understand how disturbance associated with reduced-impact logging influences the regeneration of commercial tree species in Bolivian forestry concessions. We discuss the ecological and silvicultural implications of these results. (c) 2006 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