| Literature DB >> 24505499 |
Thomas E Marler1, Roger Del Moral2.
Abstract
Vegetation structure on the east flank of Mount Pinatubo was investigated to determine the inventory of species at 15 y post-eruption, then to ascertain environmental variables that have influenced the early patterns of primary succession. Unconstrained and constrained ordination methods were used to determine the influence of spatial, elevation, and substrate patterns on vegetation. Vegetation was assigned to one of 3 habitat types. Scours were eroded flat surfaces, terraces were perched flat surfaces, and talus piles were created along the canyon edges as mass waste events. The influence of habitat type on vegetation was multifaceted because they represent different conditions and different histories. The talus piles have preferential access to colonists from the vegetation on the canyon walls above and a more benign microclimate than the exposed terrace and scour sites. Scoured sites on the valley floor exhibited the least vegetation cover, as these substrates had the least mature surfaces and the most restricted capacity for root exploration. Perched terraces exhibited greater plant dominance than did the other habitats in the early stages of succession because of the ubiquitous appearance of Parasponia rugosa as initial colonists on these relatively flat surfaces. Polynomial canonical correspondence analysis was more closely aligned with the pattern of vegetation than linear canonical correspondence analysis, and therefore more closely approximated accurate descriptions of correlations among site ordination positions and measured variables. These results confirm that a variety of statistical approaches can clarify applications for restoration ecology following landslide and volcanic disturbances or agriculture and forestry anthropogenic disturbances in the lowland tropics.Entities:
Keywords: Mount Pinatubo; canonical correspondence analysis; detrended correspondence analysis; primary succession
Year: 2013 PMID: 24505499 PMCID: PMC3913662 DOI: 10.4161/cib.25924
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Commun Integr Biol ISSN: 1942-0889
Table 1. Species richness (number of species per plot), percent cover, Shannon-Wiener Diversity (H'), and Simpson’s Diversity (D)
| Trait | Scour | Terrace | Talus pile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richness | 12.2 | 10.5 | 11.7 |
| Cover (%) | 107.5b | 139.4a | 143.2a |
| H’ | 1.587 | 1.402 | 1.615 |
| D | 0.686 | 0.664 | 0.700 |
Note: Differences among habitat types were determined separately by ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni comparisons when significant.
Table 2. Distribution of common species and growth forms across habitat types. Differences were determined by ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni comparisons (p < 0.05). Only common species are listed; growth form totals are for all species in group
| Species | Scour | Terrace | Talus pile |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 1.15 | 0.36 | 1.05 |
| | 29.9b | 45.7ab | 55.4a |
| | | | |
| | 0.37 | 0.11 | 1.7 |
| | | | |
| | 4.86a | 1.99ab | 0.20b |
| | 2.56ab | 4.04a | 0.83b |
| | 0.33 | 0.3 | 0.54 |
| | 0.76b | 0.45b | 5.51a |
| | | | |
| | 0.25b | 0.80b | 8.50a |
| | 1 | 0.8 | 0 |
| | 44.9ab | 57.3a | 34.2b |
| | | | |
| | 0.17b | 2.68a | 0.12b |
| | 0.67 | 0.94 | 0.58 |
| | 2.91 | 5.28 | 6.86 |
| | 2.47 | 1.19 | 2.03 |
| | 0.19b | 0.05b | 4.91a |
| | | | |
| | 1.96 | 4.76 | 5.68 |
| | 0.80ab | 0.31b | 1.84a |
| | 1.33a | 0.76ab | 0b |
| | 0.88a | 0.64ab | 0b |
| | 0.9 | 0 | 1.01 |
| | 1.93a | 1.64a | 0b |
| | 0.45 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| | | | |
| | 0.64 | 0.01 | 1.16 |
| | 0.32b | 0.34b | 5.72a |
| | | | |

Figure 1. Detrended correspondence analysis of all 63 plots of vegetation along 2 river systems of Mount Pinatubo, arranged by site and habitat type characteristics. PR, Pasig-Potrero River; SR, Sacobia River.
Table 3. Characteristics of linear (CCA) and polynomial (pCCA) canonical correspondence analyses
| Characteristic | CCA | pCCA |
|---|---|---|
| Total CA variance | 1.684 | 1.684 |
| Coefficient of multiple determination | 0.363 | 0.634 |
| % of total variance explained | 39.6 | 65.2 |
| Canonical eigenvalues—Axis 1 | 0.236 | 0.280 |
| Canonical eigenvalues—Axis 2 | 0.128 | 0.153 |
| % explained variance of CA—Axis 1 | 14.0 | 16.6 |
| % explained variance of CA—Axis 2 | 7.63 | 9.08 |
| % explained canonical variance—Axis 1 | 35.4 | 25.5 |
| % explained canonical variance—Axis 2 | 20.3 | 13.9 |
| Sum of all canonical eigenvalues | 0.667 | 1.097 |
CA = the indirect ordination (correspondence analysis)

Figure 2. Direct gradient analysis using: 3 habitat types (terrace, scour, talus piles); elevation, latitude (N–S), slope, and aspect; and distance to nearest habitation, edge of river basin, alluvial fan, the caldera. Plots are located as linear combination of predictor variables. (A) Linear canonical correspondence analysis (CCA; environmental vectors multiplied by 2.5 to reduce confusion.) (B) Polynomial CCA with the same variables (pCCA; environmental vectors multiplied by 3 to reduce confusion.)