4.7 Article

Grazing history versus current grazing:: leaf demography and compensatory growth of three alpine plants in response to a native herbivore (Ochotona collaris)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY
卷 90, 期 2, 页码 348-359

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2001.00672.x

关键词

alpine meadows; collared pika; Erigeron humilis; grazing history; herbivory gradient; Kobresia myosuroides; Ochotona collaris; Oxytropis nigrescens

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1 We measured leaf births, leaf deaths and leaf length of three alpine perennial species, Kobresia myosuroides, Erigeron humilis and Oxytropis nigrescens, from sites with different grazing histories (strong or weak) in response to two levels of current season grazing (present or absent) by collared pikas (Ochotona collaris), a small lagomorph, in the south-west Yukon. 2 All three species appeared to tolerate the removal of 58-61% of summer leaf production under natural conditions. Grazing history, which was defined by the location of plants located either < 2 m or > 6 m from boulderfields with a history of occupation by pikas, was the most significant factor determining shifts in leaf births and leaf deaths following herbivory. 3 The only detectable influence of current season herbivory for any measured species was a reduction of leaf length of Kobresia. 4 A comparison of historically grazed with historically ungrazed plants indicated several changes in leaf demography and morphology. Kobresia leaves were generally shorter and had higher rates of production of new leaves. Oxytropis had higher rates of new leaf production. Erigeron had fewer leaf births throughout the summer, but showed a large and highly significant delay in the timing of leaf senescence. 5 These responses can be largely understood as strategies to avoid the predictable intensive late season foraging that is characteristic of pikas. Morphological mechanisms allow these species to tolerate and, more importantly for the herbivore, persist under heavy and chronic grazing.

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