4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Stand-level effects of soil burn severity on postfire regeneration in a recently burned black spruce forest

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 2151-2163

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/X05-087

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested whether variations in soil burn severity (soil organic layer consumption) influenced patterns of early postfire plant regeneration in a black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) forest in interior Alaska. Variations in burn severity were related to measurements of postfire tree seedling establishment and cover of plant growth forms observed 7-8 years after fire. Black spruce and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) showed significant and opposite responses of seedling density to changes in soil burn severity. Positive correlations between burn severity and aspen density and individual seedling biomass led to an increase of over three orders of magnitude in aspen standing biomass (aboveground, g/m(2)) from the least to most severely burned sites. Variations in aspen productivity and consequent effects on litter production and seedbed quality possibly explain the observed negative response of black spruce density to increasing burn severity. Variations in the cover of several plant growth forms were also strongly correlated with patterns of soil burn severity. Regenerating plant communities in low-severity sites had a greater cover of evergreen shrubs and graminoids, while high-severity sites had increased cover of aspen and acro carp ous mosses. Observations of regeneration patterns in the burn are largely consistent with experimental studies of severity effects and suggest that variations in soil burn severity can have a strong influence on landscape patterns of postfire forest recovery. In this case, increases in burn severity have shifted successional trajectories away from simple conifer self-replacement towards a trajectory of mixed conifer and deciduous dominance.

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

4.4
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