Seedling diversity in actively and passively restored tropical forest understories.
degraded tropical forests
emergent tree species
human-dominated landscapes
intraspecific variation
mechanistic
phylogenetic comparative ecology
recruitment
Journal
Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America
ISSN: 1051-0761
Titre abrégé: Ecol Appl
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9889808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
06
07
2020
accepted:
16
08
2020
pubmed:
10
1
2021
medline:
27
4
2021
entrez:
9
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Alternative methods for restoring tropical forests influence the ecological processes that shape recruitment of understory species. In turn, the traits of species recruited will influence the ecological processes the forests provide now and over the long term. We assess the phylogenetic and functional structure of seedlings beneath monoculture plantations, mixed-species plantations (both active restoration) and regenerating selectively logged native forests (passive restoration), considering traits of specific leaf area (SLA, including within-species variation), leaf nitrogen and phosphorus content, life-form, potential plant height, and dispersal type. Monoculture plantations comprised seedlings that were more closely related then would be expected by chance (i.e., phylogenetically clustered), and regenerating forest contained species more distantly related then would be expected by chance (i.e., phylogenetically overdispersed). This suggests that seedlings beneath monocultures assemble through environmental filtering and through the dispersal limitation of predictable functional guilds. However, dispersal limitation is frequently overcome by human-assisted dispersal, increasing trait diversity. Comparing SLA values revealed that regenerating forests recruit seedlings with both high and low mean and variation of SLA, leading to higher overall diversity. Regenerating forest seedlings showed signs of environmental filtering, only based on within-species variation of SLA. Regenerating forest understories appear to favor species that show a high intraspecific variation in SLA values (e.g., Pterocarpus indicus Willd.) and at the same time provided habitat for later successional seedlings that show a lower intraspecific variation in SLA (e.g., Canarium luzonicum (Blume) A.Gray). This trait diversity suggests limiting similarity or competitive exclusion may be reduced because of niche differences, allowing species with different traits to coexist. Phylogenetic and functionally distinct species are restricted in their regeneration capacity, many of which are of conservation significance (under the IUCN Red List). Reforestation projects should maximize desired ecological services (including conservation value) by actively managing for the recruitment of species that are phylogenetically and functionally (including intraspecifically) distinct. This management aim will increase the probability of fulfilling a wider array of niche spaces and potentially increase the diversity of ecosystem services provided.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33421244
doi: 10.1002/eap.2286
pmc: PMC8047924
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e02286Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Ecological Applications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Ecological Society of America.
Références
Ecology. 2010 Nov;91(11):3252-60
pubmed: 21141186
Ecol Lett. 2010 Sep;13(9):1085-93
pubmed: 20576030
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Nov 7;268(1482):2211-20
pubmed: 11674868
Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S109-22
pubmed: 16922307
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 May 7;279(1734):1761-7
pubmed: 22158955
Am Nat. 2000 Aug;156(2):145-155
pubmed: 10856198
Ecol Lett. 2010 Jul;13(7):838-48
pubmed: 20482582
Ecology. 2006 Jul;87(7 Suppl):S123-31
pubmed: 16922308
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Nov 27;366(1582):3303-15
pubmed: 22006970
Nature. 2004 Apr 22;428(6985):821-7
pubmed: 15103368
Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Nov;27(11):600-7
pubmed: 22877982
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Feb 4;111(5):E536
pubmed: 24449911
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 20;11(10):e0164957
pubmed: 27764186
Science. 2005 Dec 9;310(5754):1628-32
pubmed: 16339437
Ecology. 2006 Jun;87(6):1465-71
pubmed: 16869422
Ecology. 2010 Jan;91(1):299-305
pubmed: 20380219
Ecol Lett. 2015 Sep;18(9):964-73
pubmed: 26189648
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 1;26(11):1463-4
pubmed: 20395285
Am Nat. 2008 Dec;172(6):741-50
pubmed: 18954264
Ecol Appl. 2021 Apr;31(3):e02286
pubmed: 33421244
Am Nat. 2004 Jun;163(6):823-43
pubmed: 15266381
Bioinformatics. 2008 Sep 15;24(18):2098-100
pubmed: 18678590
Ecol Lett. 2007 Nov;10(11):1029-36
pubmed: 17714492
Am J Bot. 2015 May;102(5):647-8
pubmed: 26022478
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Nov 20;104(47):18555-60
pubmed: 18003934
Ecology. 2009 Aug;90(8):2161-70
pubmed: 19739378
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017 May;92(2):1156-1173
pubmed: 27103505
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Jan 7;277(1678):97-104
pubmed: 19801375
Ecol Lett. 2015 Feb;18(2):153-63
pubmed: 25560516