4.7 Article

Disperser limitation and recruitment of an endemic African tree in a fragmented landscape

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 1030-1041

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/07-1208.1

关键词

Africa; doves; Eastern Arc Mountains; edge effects; frugivory; habitat fragmentation; inbreeding; mutualism; rodents; seed dispersal; seed predation; tropical forest

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Field Museum
  3. Wildlife Conservation Society
  4. Garden Club of America
  5. Chicago Zoological Society
  6. Chapman Memorial Fund
  7. Explorers Club
  8. IdeaWild
  9. Sigma Xi
  10. University of Illinois at Chicago

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest fragmentation may have positive or negative effects on tropical tree populations. Our earlier study of an endemic African tree, Leptonychia usambarensis (Sterculiaceae), in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania, found poorer recruitment of seedlings and juveniles in small fragments compared to continuous forest, and concomitant reduction of seed-dispersal agents and seed dispersal. However, the possibility that other biotic or abiotic consequences of the fragmentation process contribute to diminished recruitment in fragments was left open. Here we test whether excessive seed predation, diminished fecundity, low seed quality, or adverse abiotic effects acted independently or in concert with reduced seed dispersal to limit seedling and juvenile recruitment in fragments. Extended observations of disperser activity, a seed placement experiment, seed predator censuses, and reciprocal seedling transplants from forest and fragment sources failed to support the alternative hypotheses for poorer seedling and juvenile recruitment in fragments, leaving reduced seed dispersal as the most plausible mechanism. Poorer recruitment of this species in forest fragments, where high edge-to-area ratios admit more light than in continuous forest, is particularly striking because the tree is an early successional species that might be expected to thrive in disturbed microhabitats.

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