4.7 Article

Biased seed rain in forest edges: Evidence from the Brazilian Atlantic forest

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 132, 期 1, 页码 50-60

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.015

关键词

Brazilian Atlantic forest; edge effects; habitat loss; large-seeded trees; seed rain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we test the hypothesis that seed rain in forest edges differs from that in forest interior in terms of seed abundance, species richness, seed size, dispersal mode, and manipulation by vertebrates. The study was carried out in the Coimbra forest (3500ha), the largest fragment currently found in the Atlantic forest of northeast Brazil. We assessed seed rain during a 1-year period by using a 1500-m long transect (with 100 sampling units) for each habitat. Seeds were categorized according to size, dispersal mode, and vertebrate manipulation. A total of 76,207 seeds belonging to 146 species were collected during the whole study and in average edge received more seeds and species per unit of area during particular periods of time. However, the analysis of all seeds and species recorded in both habitats during the 1-year period revealed that forest interior received a significant higher percentage of medium, large and very large seeds (21.8%) and species (82.6%) in comparison to edge (13.5% of seeds and 57.5% of species). The contribution of large and very large seed species dispersed by vertebrates was also lower in the edge forest as it represented 13.04% of all vertebrate-dispersed species recorded in this habitat vs. 31.5% in the forest interior. Finally, seeds handled by vertebrates accounted for 5.9% of all seeds in forest edge, and reached 11% in the forest interior. The biased seed rain documented in the Coimbra forest raises the possibility that the creation of forest edges may alter some attributes of seed rain, particularly its content of large-seeded plants and of those dispersed by vertebrates. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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