4.5 Review

Factors affecting establishment of a gypsophyte:: The case of Lepidium subulatum (Brassicaceae)

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 87, 期 6, 页码 861-871

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2307/2656894

关键词

Brassicaceae; gypsophily; gypsum-rich soils; Lepidium; penetrometer soil resistance; seedling growth; seedling survival; structural equation modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The restriction of vascular plants to gypsum-rich soils under arid or semiarid climates has been reported by many authors in different parts of the world. However, factors controlling the presence of gypsophytes on these soils are far from understood. We investigated the establishment of Lepidium subulatum, a gypsophyte, in a nondisturbed semiarid gypsum-soil landscape in central Spain, both from spacial and temporal perspectives. Over 1400 seedlings were tagged, and their growth and survival were monitored for a 2-yr period. Several biotic and abiotic variables were measured to determine the factors controlling the emergence and early survival. These variables included the cover of annual plants, bryophytes, lichens, litter, gypsum crystals, bare fraction and cover of each perennial plant, and several soil properties (gravel, fine gravel, and fine-earth fraction, conductivity, pH, gypsum content, organic matter and penetrometer soil resistance). Our results support the linkage of gypsophily with some physical properties of the surface crust. Seedlings tended to establish on the gypsum surface crust, and their survival was size dependent, probably as a consequence of the necessity of rooting below the surface crust before summer drought arrives. However, once seedlings emerged, a higher survival rate occurred on the alluvial soils of the piedmont-slope boundary where soil crusts are absent or thinner. We conclude that Lepidium subulatum may be considered a refuge model endemic with a distribution range that occupies a reduced fraction of a wider habitat from which it is probably excluded by competition.

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