| Literature DB >> 28103281 |
Yang Lu1,2,3, Sailesh Ranjitkar1,4, Rhett D Harrison1,5, Jianchu Xu1,4, Xiaokun Ou3, Xuelan Ma1,2, Jun He6,7.
Abstract
The use of native species in forest restoration has been increasingly recognized as an effective means of restoring ecosystem functions and biodiversity to degraded areas across the world. However, successful selection of species adapted to local conditions requires specific knowledge which is often lacking, especially in developing countries. In order to scale up forest restoration, experimental data on the responses of native species to propagation and restoration treatments across a range of local conditions are required. In this study, the restoration potential of 34 native tree species was evaluated based on nursery research and field planting experiments at a highly degraded site in a subtropical area of southwest China. We examined species performance in terms of germination rates as well as survival rates and growth over 2 years after planting. Of the 34 species examined, 25 had a germination percentage greater than 50%. Survivorship ranged from 0 to 97% across species and was greater than 50% for 20 species. Mean monthly growth increments varied between species. Pioneer species performed well, and 14 mid- and late-successional species performed reasonably well to very well in this study. However, the remaining 16 mid- and late-successional species performed poorly. These results indicate that carefully selected mid- and late-successional species can be effectively incorporated into mixed species plantings. This data can be used to inform restoration planning, helping to identify suitable species and so enhance the biodiversity and resilience of restored forests.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28103281 PMCID: PMC5245873 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of the study site in the Gaoligong Mountains Nature Reserve (southern part) in Yunnan Province, Southwest China.
Information on 34 native tree species.
| Species | Family | Uses | Vegetation | Successional status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aceraceae | OR, TB | P | MS | |
| Lauraceae | MD, OL, TB | P | LS | |
| Magnoliaceae | OR, TB | P | LS | |
| Betulaceae | FW, TB | P, S, A | ES | |
| Betulaceae | TB | S | ES | |
| Ulmaceae | TB | P, S | MS | |
| Rosaceae | OR | P, S | ES | |
| Rosaceae | FR, OR | P, S | ES | |
| Anacardiaceae | FR, TB | P, S | MS | |
| Rosaceae | FR, MD, TB | P, S | MS | |
| Fagaceae | CC, TB | P | LS | |
| Ebenaceae | FR, TB | P, S | MS | |
| Elaeocarpaceae | MD, TB | P | LS | |
| Meliaceae | MD | P | MS | |
| Aquifoliaceae | TB | P | LS | |
| Oleaceae | FD, MD | P, S | MS | |
| Lauraceae | FW, OL, OR, TB | P, S, A | MS | |
| Lauraceae | OL, TB | P | LS | |
| Lauraceae | OL, TB | P, S | MS | |
| Fagaceae | CC, TB | P | LS | |
| Lauraceae | MD, OL | P, S | MS | |
| Lauraceae | TB | P | LS | |
| Lauraceae | OL, TB | P, S | LS | |
| Magnoliaceae | OR, TB | P | LS | |
| Magnoliaceae | OR, TB | P | LS | |
| Myrsinaceae | FW | P, S | MS | |
| Rosaceae | TB | P | MS | |
| Theaceae | OR | P | LS | |
| Fagaceae | FD, FW, TB | S, A | MS | |
| Theaceae | TB | P, S | MS | |
| Rosaceae | FW | P, S | MS | |
| Symplocaceae | OL, OR | P, S | MS | |
| Rutaceae | MD | P | MS | |
| Staphyleaceae | FW | P | MS |
aCC, charcoal; FD, fodder; FR, fruit; FW, firewood; MD, medicine; OL, oil; OR, ornamental; TB, timber.
bP, primary forest; S, secondary forest; A, agroforestry system.
cES, early-successional; MS, mid-successional; LS, late-successional.
Species performance standards.
| Aspect | Categories | Score |
|---|---|---|
| >80% | 3 | |
| 50–80% | 2 | |
| <50% | 1 | |
| >70% | 3 | |
| 50–70% | 2 | |
| <50% | 1 | |
| >3 cm/month | 3 | |
| 1–3 cm/month | 2 | |
| <1 cm/month or null | 1 | |
| Excellent | 8–9 | |
| Good | 6–7 | |
| Marginal | 5 | |
| Poor | 3–4 |
Seed germination rates, seedling survival rates and growth performance of 34 native tree species from a subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest in SW China.
| Species | Germination (%) | Survival (%) | ΔH (cm/month) Mean (SE) | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 60 | 1.78 (0.46) | Marginal | |
| 67 | 0 | - | Poor | |
| 70 | 4 | - | Poor | |
| 48 | 94 | 8.35 (0.45) | Good | |
| 54 | 58 | 5.85 (0.50) | Good | |
| 33 | 44 | 0.51 (0.27) | Poor | |
| 85 | 87 | 4.13 (0.34) | Excellent | |
| 95 | 92 | 6.64 (0.45) | Excellent | |
| 68 | 55 | 2.38 (0.31) | Good | |
| 15 | 76 | 2.88 (0.33) | Good | |
| 79 | 20 | 1.79 (0.61) | Marginal | |
| 73 | 97 | 2.92 (0.26) | Good | |
| 45 | 16 | - | Poor | |
| 87 | 90 | 0.99 (0.11) | Good | |
| 45 | 78 | 3.91 (0.52) | Good | |
| 61 | 93 | 0.94 (0.16) | Good | |
| 52 | 92 | 2.34 (0.13) | Good | |
| 90 | 8 | - | Marginal | |
| 78 | 90 | 1.38 (0.16) | Good | |
| 56 | 28 | 1.64 (0.51) | Marginal | |
| 40 | 12 | - | Poor | |
| 96 | 72 | 1.68 (0.16) | Excellent | |
| 85 | 84 | 1.53 (0.15) | Excellent | |
| 70 | 39 | 1.30 (0.29) | Marginal | |
| 90 | 91 | 4.46 (0.25) | Excellent | |
| 91 | 36 | 0.82 (0.20) | Marginal | |
| 81 | 71 | 0.85 (0.13) | Good | |
| 85 | 16 | - | Marginal | |
| 88 | 90 | 1.62 (0.17) | Excellent | |
| 69 | 36 | 2.29 (0.41) | Marginal | |
| 96 | 94 | 2.77 (0.25) | Excellent | |
| 40 | 48 | 1.39 (0.30) | Poor | |
| 75 | 53 | 0.80 (0.18) | Marginal | |
| 44 | 0 | - | Poor |
Seedling survival rates and mean monthly height increments (ΔH) were calculated at 2 years after planting. If a species had fewer than five individuals at that time, the columns corresponding to ΔH were left blank. Each species was given a composite rating (Table 2) based on their combined scores for germination rate, survival rate, and mean monthly height growth.
Nursery and field performance of species from different successional stages.
| Successional status | Species number | Germination (%) | Survival (%) | MHI (cm/month) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | ||
| 4 | 70.50a | 11.51 | 82.75a | 8.38 | 6.16a | 0.24 | |
| 18 | 62.94a | 5.46 | 63.17ab | 7.02 | 1.74b | 0.07 | |
| 12 | 73.17a | 5.03 | 38.00b | 9.76 | 2.48c | 0.14 | |
Values with the different superscripts are significantly different (ANOVA, Tukey post hoc analysis, p<0.05); MHI: monthly height increments.