4.7 Article

A keystone selective agent? Pine squirrels and the frequency of serotiny in lodgepole pine

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 85, 期 8, 页码 2082-2087

出版社

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/04-0177

关键词

fire-prone habitats; keystone species; life history evolution; lodgepole pine; pine squirrel; Pinus contorta; Rocky Mountains; seed predation; selective agent; serotiny; stand replacing fires; Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Serotiny is a key life history trait in fire-prone habitats that is favored in plants that experience stand-replacing fires within their average life span. Although variation in fire frequency has been the focus of most studies attempting to understand variation in serotiny among populations and species of plants, other factors can select against serotiny. One agent in particular that can select against serotiny is an efficient pre-dispersal seed predator that eats a large fraction of the seeds held in the canopy. To test whether selection by such a predator selects against scrutiny, we compared levels of serotiny in fire-adapted Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia) in five ranges lacking its dominant pre-dispersal seed predator, the pine squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) to 344 stands with pine squirrels. Where pine squirrels were absent, the frequency of serotiny was consistently near 100%, whereas where squirrels were present, the frequency was variable, rarely approached the high levels found in areas without squirrels, and averaged much less than 50%. This indicates that squirrels select against serotiny and that, in the absence of squirrels, the frequency of serotiny would probably be uniformly higher throughout much of the Rocky Mountains. Because serotiny levels also influence the density of seedlings following a fire, squirrels, by selecting strongly against scrutiny, have the potential to alter the early stages and perhaps the course of succession and various community attributes.

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