我们的网站为什么显示成这样?

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式,您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本,以获取对此功能的支持,访问下面的网站,获取关于浏览器的信息:

|Table of Contents|

鼠类及种子特征对水青冈种子命运的影响(PDF)

《南京林业大学学报(自然科学版)》[ISSN:1000-2006/CN:32-1161/S]

Issue:
2010年05期
Page:
12-16
Column:
研究论文
publishdate:
2010-10-08

Article Info:/Info

Title:
The effects of rodents and seed traits on the fate of seeds of Fagus longipetiolata
Author(s):
LIU Yingliang1 XUE Jianhui2
1.School of Life Sciences, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China; 2.College of Forest Resources and Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
Keywords:
Fagus longipetiolata fate of seeds seed traits rodents predation
Classification number :
S718
DOI:
10.3969/j.jssn.1000-2006.2010.05.003
Document Code:
A
Abstract:
Fagus longipetiolata is one of dominant species in subtropical evergreen broadleaved forests of east China. There are few seedlings from seeds of F.longipetiolata in mature F.longipetiolata forests. The natural population regeneration of F.longipetiolata depends on basal sprouting, although a large number of seeds drop every year. Adopted method of experimental ecology, the effects of rodents predation and different seed traits on the fate of seeds of F.longipetiolata were studied in order to reveal the fate of different characteristic seeds of F.longipetiolata in different microhabitats. The main results were as follows: Rattus fulvescens, Niviventer confucianus and Rattus flavipectu are key animal species acting on seeds of F.longipetiolata in the study area. Removal and consumption in situ by rodents was the most important factor affecting the fate of seeds F.longipetiolata. The seed characteristics significantly related to rodents predation under different microenvironment (p<0.01), but no significant difference was observed for consumption in situ by rodents. The mean time of different characteristic seeds of F.longipetiolata consumption in situ by rodents was that insectdam seeds was 3.05d, hulled seeds was 2.70 d, small seeds was 2.62 d and big seeds was 2.15 d. The 2way interactions between microhabitats and seed traits had no effect on predation and consumption in situ of F.longipetiolata seeds.

References

[1]Janzen D H. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests[J]. American Naturalist, 1970, 104: 501-528. [2]Janzen D H. Seedeaters versus seed size, number, toxicity and dispersal[J]. Evolution, 1969, 3: 1-2. [3]Howe H F, Schupp E W, Westley L C. Early consequences of seed dispersal for a neotropical tree (Virola surinamensis)[J]. Ecology, 1985, 66: 781-791. [4]Schupp E W. Seed and early predation in the forest understory and in tree fall gaps[J]. Oikos, 1988, 51: 71-78. [5]Chapman C S. Primate seed dispersal: the fate of dispersed seeds[J]. Biotropica, 1989, 21: 148-154. [6]Santos T, Telleria J L. Vertebrate predation on Holm Oak, Quercus ilex, acorns in a fragmented habitat: effect on seedling recruitment[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 1997, 98: 181-187. [7]张知彬,王福生. 鼠类对山杏(Prunus armeniaca)种子扩散及存活作用研究[J]. 生态学报,2001,21(5):839-845. [8]马杰,李庆芬,孙儒泳,等. 啮齿动物和鸟类对东灵山地区辽东栎种子丢失的影响[J]. 生态学杂志,2004,23(1):107-110. [9]李宏俊,张洪茂,张知彬. 鼠类对辽东栎橡子的搬运[J]. 兽类学报,2006,26 (1):8-12. [10]Iida S. Dispersal patterns of Quercus serrata acorns by wood mice in and around canopy gaps in a temperate forest[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2006, 227: 71-78. [11]中国森林编辑委员会. 中国森林:第3卷[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社,2000. [12]Kikuzawa K. Dispersal of Quercus mongolica acorns in a broadleaved deciduous forest 1.disappearance[J].Forest Ecology and Management, 1988, 25: 1-8. [13]王 巍,马克平. 东灵山地区动物对辽东栎坚果的捕食和传播Ⅰ:排除啮齿目动物对坚果丢失的影响[J]. 生态学报,2001,21(2):204-210. [14]彭闪江,徐国良. 鼎湖山锥栗种子特征及其对动物取食格局的影响[J]. 生态环境,2005,14(4):493-497. [15]肖治术,张知彬,王玉山. 啮齿动物鉴别虫蛀种子的能力及其对坚果植物更新的潜在影响[J]. 兽类学报,2003,23(4):312-320. [16]杨礼旦,王安文,李朝志. 水青冈群落物种多样性及乔木种群分布格局[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2005,29(3):107-110. [17]吴刚. 中国水青冈分布生长和更新特点[J]. 生态学杂志,1997,16(4):47-51. [18]方小平,刘映良. 水青冈种子萌发研究[J]. 种子,2009,28(12):23-24. [19]王兴邦. 水青冈木材构造和利用的研究[J]. 中南林业调查规划,2003,22(2):56-60. [20]Murton R K, Isacson A J, Westwood N J. The relationships between wood pigeons and their clover food supply and the mechanism of population control[J]. J Appl Ecol, 1966, 3: 55-93. [21]Crawley M J, Long C R. Alternate bearing, predator satiation and seedling recruitment in Quercus robur L[J]. J Eco, 1995, 83: 683-696. [22]Ashby K R. Prevention of regeneration of woodland by field mice (Apodemus sylvaticus L.) and voles (Clethrionomys glaraolus Schreber and Microtus arvensis L.) quarterly[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1959, 53: 148-158. [23]Black H C. Fate of naturally seeded coniferous seeds[C]//Black H C . Wildlife and Reforestation in the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a Symposium. Corvallis OR: Oregon State University, 1969. [24]Horton J S, Wright J T. The wood rat as an ecological factor in southern California watersheds[J]. Ecology, 1944, 25: 341-351. [25]Charnov E J. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem[J]. Theory of Population Biology, 1976, 9: 29-13. [26]Boman J S, Casper B B. Differential postdispersal seed predation in disturbed and intact temperate forest[J]. The American Midland Naturalist, 1995, 34: 107-116. [27]Xiao Z S, Zhang Z B, Wang Y S. Effects of seed size on dispersal distance in five rodentdispersed Fagaceous species[J]. Acta Oecologica, 2005, 28: 221-229. [28]Blate G M, Peart D R, Leighton M. Postdispersal predation on isolated seeds: a comparative study of 40 tree species in a southeast Asian rainforest[J]. Oikos, 1998, 82: 522-538. [29]Osunkoya O O. Postdispersal survivorship of north Queensland rainforest seeds and fruits: effects of forest, habitat and species[J]. Australian Journal of Ecology, 1994, 19: 52-64.

Last Update: 2010-10-08