Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:33:44.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Litterfall in an Australian population of Mimosa pigra, an invasive tropical shrub

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. M. Lonsdale
W. M. Lonsdale
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, Tropical Ecosystems Research Centre, PMB 44, Winnellie, N.T., Australia5789
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An investigation of seasonal changes in litterfall in a dense stand of the invasive tropical shrub Mimosa pigra was carried out in northern Australia between October 1984 and December 1986. Total annual litterfall averaged 758 g m−2, close to the value predicted for the latitude and altitude of the site. Leaf litter formed 56.6% of this total, woody material 22.7%, and reproductive material 20.7%. Total litterfall was strongly seasonal, at a maximum in the late wet season or early dry season, and at a minimum late in the dry season. A broadly similar pattern was shown by the various components of the litter, except for woody litterfall, which followed no strong seasonal trend. Variation in the amount of available soil moisture, as calculated from a simple water balance model, accounted for much of the variation in the components of litterfall.

The proportion of all initiated flower heads which produce seeds was estimated to be between 2.1 and 4.5%. The mean annual seed fall was 9103 m−2, nearly two orders of magnitude higher than most native shrub populations, and it is argued that this is partly a result of the absence of natural enemies in the introduced range.

Keywords

alien weedAustraliaflower productionlitterfallMimosa pigrareproductive allocationseed production.
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , November 1988 , pp. 381 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

Addicott, F. T. 1982. Abscission. University of California Press, Berkeley. 369 pp.Google Scholar
Bray, J. R. & Gorham, E. 1964. Litter production in the forests of the world. Advances in Ecological Research 2:101–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, R. M. & Chew, A. E. 1965. The primary productivity of a desert shrub (Larrea tridentata) community. Ecological Monographs 35:355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, A. L. & Kininmonth, W. R. 1972. A water balance model for rain-grown, lowland rice in northern Australia. Agricultural Meteorology 10:65–82.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1983. Herbivory. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 437 pp.Google Scholar
De Steven, D. 1981. Abundance and survival of a seed-infesting weevil, Pseudanthonomus hamamelidis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), on its variable-fruiting host plant, witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Ecological Entomology 6:387–396.Google Scholar
De Steven, D. 1982. Seed production and seed mortality in a temperate forest shrub (witch-hazel, Hamamelis virginiana). Journal of Ecology 70(2):437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitter, A. H. & Hay, R. K. M. 1981. Environmental physiology of plants. Academic Press, London. 355 pp.Google Scholar
Fowells, H. A. & Schubert, G. H. 1956. Seed crops of forest trees in the pine region of California USDA Technical Bulletin 767. 468 pp.Google Scholar
Franco, M. 1985. A modular approach to tree production. Pp. 257–272 in White, J. (ed.). Studies on plant demography. Academic Press, London. 393 pp.Google Scholar
Gong, W. K. & Ong, J. E. 1983. Litter production and decomposition in a coastal hill dipterocarp forest. Pp. 275–285 in Sutton, S. L., Whitmore, T. C. & Chadwick, A. C. (eds). Tropical rain forest: ecology and management. Special Publication Series of the British Ecological Society, No. 2. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 498 pp.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London. 892 pp.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. & Gajic, D. 1961. Experimental studies of the mortality and plasticity of a weed. Weed Research 1:91–104.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. & Mooney, H. A. 1986. Community changes following shrub invasion of grassland. Oecologia, Berlin 70:508–513.Google Scholar
Hopkins, B. 1966. Vegetation of the Olokomeji Reserve, Nigeria. IV. The litter and soil with special reference to their seasonal changes. Journal of Ecology 54:687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, J. E. 1977. Seed production, seed populations in soil, and seedling production after fire for two congeneric pairs of sprouting and nonsprouting chaparral shrubs. Ecology 58:820–829.Google Scholar
Keig, G. & McAlpine, J. R. 1974. WATBAL: a computer system for the estimation and analysis of soil moisture regimes from simple climatic data. (2nd edition). Technical Memorandum 74/4. CSIRO Division of Land Use Research, Canberra.Google Scholar
Koch, W. 1970. Unkrautbekampfung. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart. 267 pp.Google Scholar
Lam, P. K. S. & Dudgeon, D. 1985. Seasonal effects on litterfall in a Hong Kong mixed forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 1:55–64.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1988. Predicting the amount of litterfall in forests of the world. Annals of Botany 61 (in press).Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M., Harley, K. L. S. & Miller, I. L. 1985. The biology of Mimosa pigra L. Pp. 484–490 in Proceedings 2 of the 10th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Chiang Mai.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. & Segura, R. 1987. A demographic study of native and introduced populations of Mimosa pigra. Pp. 163–166 in Proceedings of the 8th Australian Weeds Conference. Sydney.Google Scholar
Louda, S. M. 1982. Distribution ecology: variation in plant recruitment over a gradient in relation to insect seed predation. Ecological Monographs 52:25–41.Google Scholar
Marks, T. C. & Truscott, A. J. 1985. Variation in seed production and germination of Spartina angelica within a zoned saltmarsh. Journal of Ecology 73:695–705.Google Scholar
Monk, D., Pate, J. S. & Loneragan, W. A. 1981. Biology of Acacia pulchella R.Br. with special reference to symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Australian Journal of Botany 29:579–592.Google Scholar
Nielsen, B. O. 1977. Beech seeds as an ecosystem component. Oikos 29:268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, S. N. & Proctor, J. 1986. Ecological studies on four rainforests in Karnataka, India. II. Litterfall. Journal of Ecology 74:455–463.Google Scholar
Sagar, G. R. & Harper, J. L. 1961. Controlled interference with natural populations of Plantago lanceolata, P. major and P. media. Weed Research 1:163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagar, G. R. & Mortimer, A. M. 1976. An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds. Applied Biology 1:1–43.Google Scholar
Seber, G. A. F. 1977. Linear regression analysis. J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 465 pp.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J. 1980. The evolutionary ecology of mast seeding in trees. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 14:235–250.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. & Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. (2nd edition). W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 859 pp.Google Scholar
Spain, A. V. 1984. Litterfall and the standing crop of litter in three tropical Australian rainforests. Journal of Ecology 72:947–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellington, A. B. & Noble, I. R. 1985. Seed dynamics and factors limiting recruitment of the mallee Eucalyptus incrassata in semi-arid, south-eastern Australia. Journal of Ecology 73:657–666.Google Scholar
Willson, M. F. 1983. Plant reproductive ecology J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 282 pp.Google Scholar