4.5 Article

Determinants of distribution of six Pinus species in Catalonia, Spain

期刊

JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 491-502

出版社

OPULUS PRESS UPPSALA AB
DOI: 10.2307/3237001

关键词

classification and regression trees; environmental modelling; Mediterranean basin; Pinus halepensis; potential distribution; species interaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the determinants of distribution, abundance and regeneration of six Pinus species (P. halepensis, P. nigra, P. pinaster, P. pinea, P. sylvestris and P. uncinata) that occur naturally in Catalonia, northeastern Spain. The aim of this study was to generate accurate predictions of the distribution of each species using simple and readily available environmental variables. We used recursive partitioning and GIS analyses to relate the data base of 10600 field plots from the Forestry Inventory of Catalonia with abiotic and biotic characteristics of each plot. We present general patterns of distribution, dominance and regeneration for the six species and then focus on P. halepensis, the most abundant pine species in the western Mediterranean Basin. For all six species, the models correctly classified more than 80% of the distribution using abiotic factors, mainly altitude and rainfall variability. Biotic factors such as the basal area of other pine species were necessary to accurately predict patterns of pine species dominance. Biotic factors, especially the basal area of evergreen species (mainly Quercus ilex), were of overriding importance when predicting patterns of seedling occurrence. Potentially important factors such as land use and fire history were of little significance for predicting distribution at the scale of our study. Our models failed to predict accurately which species (and in which numbers) co-occur with P. halepensis. Factors not included in this study, such as stand age, disturbance (cutting, clearing) and other human-induced factors, are probably the main determinants of co-existence patterns.

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