4.0 Article

Response of the soil seed-bank of Cumberland Plain Woodland to heating

期刊

AUSTRAL ECOLOGY
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 14-22

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING ASIA
DOI: 10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01232.x

关键词

Cumberland Plain Woodland; germination; heat; shale communities; soil seed-bank

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil was investigated in a Cumberland Plain Woodland community to determine the presence of a soil seed-bank and whether species richness and abundance of plants germinating from it were affected by heating such as that experienced in a fire. Soil samples were taken from the Holsworthy Military Area, in the south-eastern region of the Sydney Basin, New South Wales, Australia, and one of four treatments was applied; soil was heated to 80degreesC, 40degreesC, unheated or unheated with litter not removed. Sixty-eight species, representing 26 families including 11 exotic and 57 native species germinated from the soil. Herbs and grasses dominated and were in similar proportions to those surveyed in the above-ground vegetation, suggesting that the soil seed-bank reflected the current structure of the vegetation, although species composition differed. Species responded differently to heating. The seeds of some species germinated when heated at a higher temperature (80degreesC), particularly those from the family Fabaceae, whereas other species were more common in unheated or lightly heated samples (40degreesC). This suggests that fire is likely to change the species composition of the above-ground vegetation and indicates that management must ensure that species that do not germinate when heated are maintained, as well as those species that germinate following heating. A large proportion of soil seed-bank species showed low germination rates in the trials, and 112 above-ground species did not germinate in the soil samples. We do not understand whether species of these two sets do not produce a soil-stored seed-bank or whether the seed-bank has been depleted by past practices at Holsworthy. Further research is needed.

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

4.0
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