Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:21:13.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between seed size and litter effects on early seedling establishment of 15 tropical tree species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

Fabiano Micheletto Scarpa  and
I. F. M. Valio
Fabiano Micheletto Scarpa
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fisiologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP, Caixa Postal 6109, 13083–970, Campinas, SP, Brazil
I. F. M. Valio*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fisiologia Vegetal, Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP, Caixa Postal 6109, 13083–970, Campinas, SP, Brazil
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A close relationship has been reported between seed size and many different plant traits such as seedling size, relative growth rate, seedling survival, distance of dispersion, colonization and density of seeds in the soil (Coomes & Grubb 2003, Jurado & Westoby 1992, Lahoreau et al. 2006, Saverimuttu & Westoby 1996, Souza & Valio 2001). Although the association of seed size and shade tolerance is unclear (Westoby et al. 1996) some authors have suggested that a larger-seeded species is better able to tolerate low light availability (Foster 1986, Foster & Janson 1985, Leishman & Westoby 1994) by producing a vigorous seedling with a higher ability to withstand predation (Armstrong & Westoby 1993, Foster 1986) and delaying the beginning of carbon fixation so as to increase survival under a canopy and under leaf litter.

Keywords

pioneersecondary speciesseed massseedling recruitment
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 24 , Issue 5 , September 2008 , pp. 569 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

AHLGREN, C. E. & AHLGREN, I. F. 1981. Some effects of different forest litters on seed germination and growth. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 11:710–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARMSTRONG, D. P. & WESTOBY, M. 1993. Seedlings from large seeds tolerate defoliation better: a test using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Ecology 74:1092–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BALLARÉ, C. L., SÁNCHEZ, R. A., SCOPEL, A. L. & GHERSA, C. M. 1988. Morphological responses of Datura ferox L. seedlings to the presence of neighbors. The relationship with canopy microclimate. Oecologia 76:288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENITEZ-MALVIDO, J. & KOSSMANN-FERRAZ, I. D. 1999. Litter cover variability affects seedling performance and herbivory. Biotropica 31:598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARTER, M. F. & GRACE, J. B. 1986. Relative effects of Justicia americana litter on germination, seedling and established plants of Polygonon lapathifolium. Aquatic Botany 23:341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CASAL, J. J., BALLARÉ, C. L., TOURN, M. & SANCHEZ, R. A. 1994. Anatomy, growth and survival of a long-hypocotyl mutant of Cucumis sativus deficient in phytochrome-b. Annals of Botany 73:569–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAZDON, R. L. & FETCHER, N. 1984. Light environments of tropical forests. Pp. 27–36 in Medina, E., Mooney, H. A. & Vazquez-Yanes, C. (eds). Physiological ecology of plants of the wet tropics. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOMES, D. A. & GRUBB, P. J. 2003. Colonization, tolerance, competition, and seed-size variation within functional groups. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FACELLI, J. M. & PICKETT, S. T. A. 1991. Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. The Botanical Review 57:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FOSTER, S. A. 1986. On the adaptive value of large seeds for tropical moist forest trees: a review and synthesis. The Botanical Review 52:260–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FOSTER, S. A. & JANSON, C. H. 1985. The relationship between seed size and establishment conditions in tropical woody plants. Ecology 66:773–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FROBORG, H. 2001. Seed size and seedling emergence in 16 temperate forest herbs and one dwarf-shrub. Nordic Journal of Botany 21:373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAMRICK, J. L. & LEE, J. M. 1987. Effects of soil surface topography and litter cover on germination, survival and growth of musk thistle. American Journal of Botany 74:451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HURLBERT, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54:187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JURADO, E. & WESTOBY, M. 1992. Seedling growth in relation to seed size among species of arid. Australian Journal of Ecology 80:407–416.Google Scholar
KITAJIMA, K. & FENNER, M. 2000. Ecology of seedling regeneration. Pp. 331–359 in Fenner, M. (ed.). Seeds. The ecology of regeneration in plant communities. (Second edition). CABI Publishing, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAHOREAU, G., BAROT, S., GIGNOUX, J., HOFFMANN, W. A., SETTERFIELD, S. & WILLIAMS, P. R. 2006. Positive effect of seed size on seedling survival in fire-prone savannas of Australia, Brazil and West Africa. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22:719–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEISHMAN, M. & WESTOBY, M. 1994. The role of large seed size in shaded conditions – experimental evidence. Functional Ecology 8:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACK, A. L. 1998. An advantage of large size: tolerating rather than succumbing to seed predators. Biotropica 30:604–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MYSTER, R. W. 1994. Contrasting litter effects of old field tree germination and emergence. Vegetatio 114:169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOLOFSKY, J. & AUSPURGER, C. K. 1992. The effect of leaf litter on early seedling establishment in a tropical forest. Ecology 73:68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REBOLLO, S., PÉREZ-CAMACHO, L., GARCÍA DE JUAN, M. T., REY BENAYAS, J. M. & GÓMEZ-SAL, A. 2001. Recruitment in a Mediterranean annual plant community: seed bank, litter emergence, and intra- and inter-specific interactions. Oikos 95:485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAVERIMUTTU, T. & WESTOBY, M. 1996. Seedling longevity under deep shade in relation to seed size. Journal of Ecology 84:681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCARIOT, A. 2000. Seedling mortality by litterfall in Amazonian forest fragments. Biotropica 32:662–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SOUZA, R. P. & VALIO, I. F. M. 2001. Seed size, seed germination and seedling survival of Brazilian tropical tree species differing in successional status. Biotropica 33:447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SWAINE, M. D. & WHITMORE, T. C. 1988. On the definition of ecological species groups in tropical rain forests. Vegetatio 75:81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VALIO, I. F. M. & SCARPA, F. M. 2001. Germination of seeds of tropical pioneer species under controlled and natural conditions. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 24:69–74.Google Scholar
VÁZQUEZ-YANES, C. & OROZCO-SEGOVIA, A. 1987. Light gap detection by photoblastic seeds of Cecropia obtusifolia and Piper auritum, two rain forest trees. Biologia Plantarum 29:234–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VÁZQUEZ-YANES, C. & OROZCO-SEGOVIA, A. 1994. Signals for seeds to sense and respond to gaps. Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants. Pp. 261–318 in Caldwell, M. & Pearcy, R. (eds.). Ecophysiological processes above and below ground. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
VÁZQUEZ YANES, C., OROZCO–SEGOVIA, A., RINCÓN, M., SÁNCHEZ-CORONADO, E., HUANTE, P. & BARRADAS, V. L. 1990. Light beneath the litter in a tropical forest: effect on seed germination. Ecology 71:1952–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WESTOBY, M., LEISHMAN, M. & LORD, J. 1996. Comparative ecology of seed size and dispersal. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 351:1309–1318.Google Scholar
WHITMORE, T. C. 1989. Canopy gaps and the two major groups of forest trees. Ecology 70:536–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
XIONG, S. & NILSSON, C. 1997. Dynamics of litter accumulation and its effects on riparian vegetation: a review. The Botanical Review 63:240–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar