4.4 Article

Seed availability as a limiting factor in forest recovery processes in Costa Rica

期刊

RESTORATION ECOLOGY
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 414-424

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80056.x

关键词

abandoned pasture; Costa Pica forest recovery; forest restoration; seed availability; seed dispersal; seed predation; seed rain; soil seed bank; tropics

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abandoned pastures and secondary forests are increasingly prominent features of tropical landscapes. Forest regrowth on abandoned pastures is generally slow and virtually limited to regeneration from seeds from external sources, since agricultural activities alter site conditions. We hypothesize that seed availability is a major limiting factor in forest recovery on abandoned pastures. This hypothesis was tested by studying the seed bank, seed rain, and seed predation in a small pasture (I ha) situated in a forest-pasture mosaic in northwestern Costa Pica. The tree seed density in the pasture seed bank was much lower (21/m(2)) than the density in the seed bank of a neighboring secondary forest (402/m(2)). Within a period of five weeks, 23 tree seeds entered the pasture by seed rain. This number is low compared to densities found in closed forests but higher than densities reported in other studies where virtually no seeds were found beyond 20 m from the forest edge. Possibly the small size of the pasture with seed sources nearby and the small-scale landscape mosaic enhance seed dispersal. Predation limits the seed density in pastures, with 42% of the woody species consumed by predators. The low seed density in the seed bank, and hampered recruitment combined with significant losses, pose severe restrictions to forest recovery on abandoned pastures. Moderate land use, and small sized clearings with seed sources nearby may increase the pace of recovery. Nevertheless, forest establishment may still take a considerable time. Thus, enlarging the available pool of species may be a worthwhile management strategy.

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