4.3 Article

Depth distribution and composition of seed banks under different tree layers in a managed temperate forest ecosystem

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2005.11.005

关键词

forest plantation; seed bank size; spatial pattern; ancient forest species; Quercus robur; Fagus sylvatica; Pinus sylvestris

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

in the present work we examined the composition and distribution across three soil layers of the buried soil seed bank under three different overstory types (Fagus sylvatica, Quercus robur, Pinus sylvestris) and in logging areas in a 4383-ha forest in central Belgium. The objectives were: (1) to investigate whether species composition and species richness of soil seed banks are affected by different forest stands; (2) to examine how abundant are habitat-specific forest species in seed banks under different planted tree layers. The study was carried out in stands which are replicated, managed in the same way (even-aged high forest), and growing on the same soil type with the same land-use history. In the investigated area, the seed bank did show significant differences under oak, beech, pine and in logging areas, respectively in terms of size, composition and depth occurrence. All species and layers taken together, the seed bank size ranked as follows: oakwood > beechwood > logging area > pinewood. The same pattern was found for forest species. Seed numbers of Betula pendula, Calluna vulgaris, Dryopteris dilatata and Rubus fruticosus were significantly higher under the beech canopy. Carex remota, Impatiens parviflora and Lotus sp. showed a significantly denser seed bank in logging areas, while Digitalis purpurea seeds were significantly more abundant in soils under the oak canopy. The fact that the seed bank of an originally homogeneous forest varies under different planted stands highlights that a long period of canopy conversion can affect the composition and depth of buried seeds. (c) 2006 Elsevier SAS. 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

4.3
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