4.5 Article

Altered fire regimes affect landscape patterns of plant succession in the foothills and mountains of southern California

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 885-898

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-005-0017-6

关键词

chaparral; ecotone; LANDIS; landscape simulation model; obligate seeder; pine forest; plant functional type

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the southern California foothills and mountains, pronounced and complex topographic gradients support fire regimes that vary over short distances. We used LANDIS, a spatially explicit landscape model of disturbance and plant succession, to examine the resilience of dominant plant species, representing different disturbance response strategies, to the effect of varying fire rotation intervals (FRI). The simulated fire regimes represented natural, current and very long FRIs for the foothill shrublands less than 1,400 m (90, 30 and 150 years) and montane forest greater than 1400 m (30, 150, 500 years). The 30- year FRI allowed obligate resprouting shrubs to dominate over obligate seeders, whereas the 90-year FRI resulted in a stable spatial distribution of both of these shrub functional types. This is consistent with the literature that suggests that shifts in shrubland composition are most likely to result from human-caused increases in fire frequency at the low- elevation urban- wildland interface. An ecotone conifer, Pinus coulteri, showed dramatic shifts in distribution under different FRIs, and retreated to the portion of the landscape representing its temporal regeneration niche. Both low and high frequency fire maintained the fire tolerant dominant pine (P. jeffreyi) in the montane zone. This contradicts the literature that suggests that a high frequency ground fire regime is required for the persistence of a pine-dominated forest, but is consistent with studies showing that conifer forests in the western U. S. have experienced, and are resilient to, a broad range of natural FRIs that include low frequency, high intensity crown fires.

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