| Literature DB >> 26940005 |
Lei Ma1,2, Juyu Lian3, Guojun Lin4, Honglin Cao3, Zhongliang Huang3, Dongsheng Guan1,2.
Abstract
Tree mortality and recruitment are key factors influencing forest dynamics, but the driving mechanisms of these processes remain unclear. To better understand these driving mechanisms, we studied forest dynamics over a 5-year period in a 20-ha sub-tropical forest in the Dinghushan Nature Reserve, South China. The goal was to identify determinants of tree mortality/recruitment at the local scale using neighborhood analyses on some locally dominant tree species. Results show that the study plot was more dynamic than some temperate and tropical forests in a comparison to large, long-term forest dynamics plots. Over the 5-year period, mortality rates ranged from 1.67 to 12.33% per year while recruitment rates ranged from 0 to 20.26% per year. Tree size had the most consistent effect on mortality across species. Recruitment into the ≥1-cm size class consistently occurred where local con-specific density was high. This suggests that recruitment may be limited by seed dispersal. Hetero-specific individuals also influenced recruitment significantly for some species. Canopy species had low recruitment into the ≥1-cm size class over the 5-year period. In conclusion, tree mortality and recruitment for sixteen species in this plot was likely limited by seed dispersal and density-dependence.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26940005 PMCID: PMC4778038 DOI: 10.1038/srep22561
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Exponential mortality coefficient decreased as the DBH of the individuals with DBH <56 cm in DHS plot increased.
Difference in the number of individuals, number of dead wood and recruits for the 20 species that reduced most during the 5-year in DHS plot.
| 3287 | 1784 | −1503 | 1513 | 10 | |
| 2113 | 924 | −1189 | 1293 | 104 | |
| 3994 | 2944 | −1050 | 1309 | 259 | |
| 3722 | 2789 | −933 | 981 | 48 | |
| 1293 | 409 | −884 | 897 | 13 | |
| 1326 | 474 | −852 | 863 | 11 | |
| 5917 | 5103 | −814 | 899 | 85 | |
| 4449 | 3829 | −620 | 1595 | 975 | |
| 3696 | 3127 | −569 | 651 | 82 | |
| 612 | 77 | −535 | 540 | 5 | |
| 902 | 455 | −447 | 462 | 15 | |
| 2752 | 2344 | −408 | 511 | 103 | |
| 2290 | 1894 | −396 | 406 | 10 | |
| 1404 | 1103 | −301 | 310 | 9 | |
| 2546 | 2268 | −278 | 375 | 97 | |
| 1578 | 1351 | −227 | 271 | 44 | |
| 2294 | 2076 | −218 | 231 | 13 | |
| 605 | 395 | −210 | 248 | 38 | |
| 844 | 636 | −208 | 214 | 6 | |
| 1526 | 1377 | −149 | 199 | 50 |
Difference in the number of individuals, number of dead wood and recruits for the 20 species that increased most during the 5-year in DHS plot.
| 5969 | 7894 | 1925 | 479 | 2404 | |
| 747 | 985 | 238 | 72 | 310 | |
| 263 | 480 | 217 | 73 | 290 | |
| 155 | 309 | 154 | 43 | 197 | |
| 344 | 459 | 115 | 59 | 174 | |
| 114 | 139 | 25 | 22 | 47 | |
| 375 | 399 | 24 | 67 | 91 | |
| 617 | 633 | 16 | 21 | 37 | |
| 5 | 18 | 13 | 0 | 13 | |
| 38 | 48 | 10 | 5 | 15 | |
| 52 | 60 | 8 | 6 | 14 | |
| 80 | 88 | 8 | 16 | 24 | |
| 25 | 31 | 6 | 3 | 9 | |
| 28 | 34 | 6 | 3 | 9 | |
| 7 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
| 19 | 23 | 4 | 5 | 9 | |
| 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
Summary of generalized linear model analyses of 16 species with >1400 individuals in the DHS plot.
| 0.18 | 0.32*** | 0.18 | −1.48 | 0.33*** | 0.026 | Wind | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.35*** | 0.13* | 0.45*** | −0.41* | 0.026 | Wind | mid-tolerant | ||
| −0.64*** | 0.11* | −0.08 | 0.11 | −0.03 | 0.025 | Wind | shade-tolerant | |
| −0.34*** | 0.02 | 0.17** | 0.23 | 0.22*** | 0.027 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.38** | 0.12* | 0.36*** | −0.24 | 0.05 | 0.021 | Wind | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.38*** | 0.18** | 0.19* | 0.37 | 0.08 | 0.046 | Animal | shade-tolerant | |
| 0.10 | 0.05 | −0.01 | 0.09 | −0.34** | 0.030 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.91*** | −0.11 | 0.16* | 0.24* | −0.14 | 0.128 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| −0.17** | 0.16 | 0.21* | 0.11 | −0.10 | 0.012 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.74*** | −0.15 | 0.09 | 0.10 | −0.13 | 0.049 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| 1.91*** | −0.17 | 0.87*** | −0.17 | 0.69** | 0.093 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| −0.20** | −0.20** | 0.18* | 0.42 | 0.13 | 0.038 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| −0.25** | −0.04 | 0.03 | −0.02 | 0.86*** | 0.039 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.80*** | 0.21 | −0.06 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.035 | Animal | mid-tolerant | |
| 0.25*** | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.05 | −0.59* | 0.025 | Animal | shade-tolerant | |
| 0.43*** | 0.11 | 0.19 | 0.03 | −0.11 | 0.034 | Wind | shade-tolerant |
“T-BA” stands for total basal area of all stems; “T-N” stands for total number of all stems; “Cons-BA” stands for basal area of con-specific stems; “Cons-N” stands for number of con-specific stems.
Summary of results for the recruitment’s analysis (with live woods).
| ↑ | − | ↓ | ↑ | N | |
| ↑ | ↑ | ↓, − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↓, − | ↑ | ↑, ↓, − | ↑, ↓, − | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | Y | |
| ↓, − | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑, − | − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | Y | |
| ↓, − | ↑, − | − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | N | |
| ↑ | ↑ | ↓, − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑ | ↑, − | − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↓, − | ↑, − | ↑ | ↑ | Y | |
| ↓ | ↑ | − | ↑ | N | |
| ↑, − | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | Y | |
| − | ↑, − | − | ↑, − | Y |
“T-BA” stands for total basal area of all stems; “T-N” stands for total number of all stems; “Cons-BA” stands for basal area of con-specific stems; “Cons-N” stands for number of con-specific stems. “↑” stands for values of observation significantly higher than values of simulation; “↓” stands for values of observation significantly lower than values of simulation; “−” stands for values of observation and simulation have no significantly difference; “Y” stands for differences between values of observation and simulation have the same trend at all four neighborhood radii; “N” stands for differences between values of observation and simulation have the different trend at all four neighborhood radii.
Summary of results for the recruitment’s analysis (with dead woods).
| ↑, − | ↓ | Y | |
| ↑ | ↑, − | Y | |
| ↓, − | ↑, − | Y | |
| ↓, − | ↓ | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑ | Y | |
| − | ↓ | N | |
| − | − | N | |
| ↓, − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑ | ↑ | N | |
| ↑ | ↑, − | Y | |
| − | ↓, − | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑, − | Y | |
| ↓ | ↑, − | Y | |
| − | ↓, − | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑ | Y | |
| ↑, − | ↑, − | Y |
“T-BA” stands for total basal area of all stems; “T-N” stands for total number of all stems; “Cons-BA” stands for basal area of con-specific stems; “Cons-N” stands for number of con-specific stems. “↑” stands for values of observation significantly higher than values of simulation; “↓” stands for values of observation significantly lower than values of simulation; “−” stands for values of observation and simulation have no significantly difference; “Y” stands for differences between values of observation and simulation have the same trend at all four neighborhood radii; “N” stands for differences between values of observation and simulation have the different trend at all four neighborhood radii.