4.7 Article

Fire and invasive species: Modifications in the germination potential of Acacia melanoxylon, Conyza canadensis and Eucalyptus globulus

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 302, 期 -, 页码 7-13

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.02.030

关键词

Ash; Heat; Invasive species; Post-fire response; Smoke

类别

资金

  1. Direccion Xeral de Investigacion, Desenvolvemento e Innovacion, of the Conselleria de Economia e Industria [10MDS200007PR]
  2. Direccion Xeral de Investigacion, Desenvolvemento e Innovacion of the Xunta de Galicia, Spain [10MDS200007PR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study attempts to understand the effect of the main fire factors (smoke, ash and heat) on the germination of three invasive species widely distributed in many countries: Acacia melanoxylon, Conyza canadensis and Eucalyptus globulus. Fifteen simple treatments were tested: 3 of Smoke, 3 of Ash, 8 of Heat, and 1 Control (Control 1). In addition, in C. canadensis a second test was performed using 4 combined treatments: Smoke-Ash, Smoke-Heat, Ash-Heat, Smoke-Ash-Heat and Control 2.The seeds were incubated in a germination chamber with a photoperiod of 16 h of light at 24 degrees C and 8 h of darkness at 16 degrees C. Three species showed different responses from fire factors. Smoke and ash treatments did not modify the germination percentage of A. melanoxylon, but moderate heat increased germination and severe heat significantly decreased it. Moreover, some treatments significantly decreased germination rate. C canadensis germination was increased by moderate levels of all the factors tested, whilst high levels of fire delayed and reduced germination. The combined action of the fire factors did not modify the germination percentage, but did reduce the germination rate. E. globulus had low germination in Control 1 and none of the tested treatments modified either percentage or rate of germination. Finally, regenerative aspects of the three species are discussed. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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