Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Instituto Tecnológico de Costa RicaUNAM, México
UNIMONTES, Brasil
Structure, floristic composition and tree diameter
growth of three successional stages in TDF: Costa
Rica, Brazil and México
Dr. Julio Calvo-Alvarado
1000 m2 60 m50 m
30 m
20 m
Early
Intermediate
Late
3 plots/stage Mx, CR
6 plots/stage Brazil
2008. Manual of Methods: Human, Ecological and Biophysical
Dimensions of Tropical Dry Forests. J. M. Nassar, J. P. Rodríguez, A.
Sánchez-Azofeifa, T. Garvin and M. Quesada, editors. Ediciones
IVIC, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (IVIC),
Caracas, Venezuela. 127 p.
Trees/lianas ≥ 5 cm Ø
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Stage 5 12 10 8,7 15,4 19,9 10,3 15,3 16,9
0
5
10
15
20
25
Me
ters
Canopy Dominant Height
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
Canopy Height 10-40 m -Murphy PG and Lugo AE (1986)
10
40
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Stage 5 12 10 8,7 15,4 19,9 10,3 15,3 16,9
0
5
10
15
20
25
Me
ters
Canopy Dominant Height
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
Canopy Height 10-40 m -Murphy PG and Lugo AE (1986)
10
40
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 52 149 184 92 92 120 87 121 122
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Nu
mb
er
Stem DensityTrees ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 11 28 32 13 28 25 15 33 29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35N
um
be
r
Tree Species Number
Trees ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
tree richness of 50 sp. (range 21–81), Gentry, 1995.
81
21
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 11 28 32 13 28 25 15 33 29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35N
um
be
r
Tree Species Number
Trees ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
tree richness of 50 sp. (range 21–81), Gentry, 1995.
81
21
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 0,2 1,2 1,9 0,9 2,6 3 0,6 1,7 2,6
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
m2
Basal AreaTrees ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
Basal area (m2 1000m2) 1,7–4,0 -Murphy PG and Lugo AE (1986)
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 0,2 1,2 1,9 0,9 2,6 3 0,6 1,7 2,6
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
m2
Basal AreaTrees ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
Basal area (m2 1000m2) 1,7–4,0 -Murphy PG and Lugo AE (1986)
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 1,1 59,8 116,0 11,9 117,5 176,6 9,3 102,6 159,3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Holdridge C.I
Tree ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
Holdridge C I. = 10-3 *hbds
h= Dominant height; b= Basal Area; d= Stem density; s= Species number
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 1,1 59,8 116,0 11,9 117,5 176,6 9,3 102,6 159,3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Holdridge C.I
Tree ≥ 5cm Ø
Santa RosaMata Seca
Chamela
Holdridge C I. = 10-3 *hbds
h= Dominant height; b= Basal Area; d= Stem density; s= Species number
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 3,2 2,6 2,2 1,6 2,2 1,2 5,02 2,55 1,9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tree Diameter Growth mm/year
2005-2011
Tree diameter growth (mm yr1) 1–3, Murphy PG and Lugo AE (1986)
?
EarlyInterme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate Early
Interme
diateLate
Series1 3,2 2,6 2,2 1,6 2,2 1,2 5,02 2,55 1,9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tree Diameter Growth mm/year
2005-2011
Tree diameter growth (mm yr1) 1–3, Murphy PG and Lugo AE (1986)
?
?
Stage FamilyComposition
(%)
No. Of
speciesFamily
Composition
(%)
No. Of
speciesFamily
Composition
(%)
No. Of
species
Fabaceae 70,7 12 Verbenaceae 32,5 2 Anacardiaceae 36,8 2
Anacardiaceae 5,7 1 Fabaceae 21,3 4 Apocynaceae 24,3 2
- - - Cochlospermaceae 19,5 1 Bignoniaceae 18,9 4
- - - Malphigiaceae 7,2 1 - - -
Fabaceae 30,5 14 Malvaceae 17,8 6 Bignoniaceae 28,3 13
Euphorbiaceae 15,7 3 Fabaceae 17,5 12 Combretaceae 13,6 3
Boraginaceae 8,5 3 Meliaceae 9,8 5 Fabaceae 12,0 17
Tiliaceae 8,1 1 Rubiaceae 8,7 4 Euphorbiaceae 9,2 8
- - - Flacourtiaceae 6,2 3 Vitaceae 8,8 3
- - - Moraceae 6,2 3 - - -
- - - Boraginaceae 5,8 2 - - -
Fabaceae 50,5 20 Euphorbiaceae 19,2 3 Bignoniaceae 38,1 12
Sapindaceae 12,9 1 Rubiaceae 16,7 6 Combretaceae 18,1 5
- - - Hippocrateaceae 12,0 1 Anacardiaceae 5,9 3
- - - Fabaceae 8,6 7 - - -
- - - Malvaceae 7,2 5 - - -
- - - Burseraceae 5,8 3 - - -
- - - Bignoniaceae 5,3 4 - - -
- - - Apocynaceae 5,0 1 - - -
- - - Fagaceae 0,6 1 - - -
Families with a percent composition greater than 5% in the three successional stagesL
ate
Mata SecaSanta RosaChamelaE
arl
yIn
term
ed
iate
(Gentry, 1995). The most important families in order of dominance are: Fabaceae,
Bignoniaceae, Rubiaceae, Sapindaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Capparidaceae,
Apocynaceae, Nyctaginaceae, Polygonaceae, Malpighiaceae, and Cactaceae.
Stage Species IVI Species IVI Species IVI
Caesalpinia eriostachys 44,4 Rehdera trinervis 80,9 Myracrodruon urundeuva 99,1
Acacia cochliacantha 42,0 Cochlospermum vitifolium 48,6 Handroanthus ochraceus 44,2
Mimosa cf. acantholoba 31,8 Gliricidia sepium 41,2 Mimosa hostilis 24,5
Lonchocarpus cf. cochleatus 18,3 Quercus oleoides 35,4 Senegalia polyphylla 19,2
Spondias purpurea 17,1 Byrsonima crassifolia 20,4 Piptadenia oftalmocentra 10,6
Leucaena lanceolata 14,4 Machaerium biovulatum 8,2 Prosopis sp 10,2
Ruprechtia fusca 12,6 Semialarium mexicanum 7,8 Schinopsis brasiliensis 10,0
Casearia corymbosa 12,2 Pisonia aculeata 7,6 Aspidosperma parvifolium 8,8
Gyrocarpus jatrophifolius 11,5 Luehea candida 6,7 Senna spectabilis 8,2
Piptadenia constricta 11,4 Lippia oxyphyllaria 4,8 Platymiscium blanchetii 8,0
subtotal 10 species 216,0 subtotal 10 species 261,6 subtotal 10 species 242,8
other species (20) 84,0 other species (16) 38,4 other species (26) 57,2
Heliocarpus pallidus 24,3 Luehea candida 24,2 Handroanthus reticulatus 54,3
Spondias purpurea 19,7 Samanea saman 18,4 Combretum duarteanum 29,7
Cordia elaeagnoides 19,2 Trichilia hirta 17,2 Commiphora leptophloeus 17,1
Caesalpinia eriostachys 19,1 Prosopis juliflora 14,5 Terminalia fagifolia 15,7
Cnidoscolus spinosus 18,0 Guettarda macrosperma 13,0 Pseudopiptadenia contorta 14,6
Hylocereus ocamponis 14,6 Spondias mombin 12,2 Poincianella pluviosa 10,8
Lonchocarpus cf. cochleatus 13,9 Calycophyllum candidissimum 11,7 Spondias tuberosa 10,1
Piranhea mexicana 13,4 Trophis racemosa 9,3 Stillingia saxatilis 9,5
Piptadenia constricta 12,0 Guazuma ulmifolia 8,9 Handroanthus spongiosus 8,5
Gyrocarpus jatrophifolius 11,3 Semialarium mexicanum 8,8 Patagonula bahiensis 8,4
subtotal 10 species 165,5 subtotal 10 species 138,1 subtotal 10 species 178,8
other species (56) 134,5 other species (50) 161,9 other species (45) 121,2
Caesalpinia eriostachys 42,4 Sebastiania pavoniana 30,9 Handroanthus chrysotrichus 64,4
Apoplanesia paniculata 27,1 Bursera simaruba 25,6 Myracrodruon urundeuva 31,6
Thouinia paucidentata 22,7 Semialarium mexicanum 23,4 Combretum duarteanum 29,4
Piptadenia constricta 16,1 Guettarda macrosperma 20,0 Handroanthus reticulatus 16,0
Spondias purpurea 15,1 Rehdera trinervis 16,7 Poincianella pluviosa 14,0
Heliocarpus pallidus 14,6 Luehea candida 15,1 Aspidosperma polyneuron 13,7
Lonchocarpus cf. cochleatus 11,2 Exostema mexicanum 14,7 Commiphora leptophloeus 12,5
Bursera arborea 9,5 Stemmadenia obovata 12,7 Terminalia fagifolia 8,5
Caesalpinia coriaria 9,1 Lysiloma divaricatum 12,0 Cavanillesia arborea 8,2
Lysiloma microphylla 8,6 Lonchocarpus minimiflorus 7,8 Casearia selloana 7,3
subtotal 10 species 176,5 subtotal 10 species 178,9 subtotal 10 species 205,7
other species (55) 123,5 other species (46) 121,1 other species (49) 94,3
IVI Analysis for all plots in each site (Basal Area, Frequency, Abundance)
Late
Mata SecaSanta RosaChamela
Ea
rly
Inte
rme
dia
te
80%
53%
62%
Final comments
• Tree diameter annual growth and some structural /
composition characteristics of TDFs differ according to
latitude, but the causes may be more relate to site quality,
age and previous land use, therefore it is necessary to better
study these factors at each site
• The results for structure and composition characteristics of
Late stage are among the value ranges reported in the
literature. The most important contribution of this study is to
generate information for the early and intermediate stages,
that have not been previously reported systematically
• Results of tree mortality and recruitment for each stage and
site is pending. This information will allow us to build a better
succession model and to make superior estimates of carbon
sequestration of TDFs.
• Other variables pending to be integrated in our studies are: litter fall, phenology, leaf area, hervivory and rainfall interception, which would help to build a comprehensive successional model to evaluate landscape-scale environmental services such as carbon sequestration, pollination and water production.
• The relationship of these results with climatic data and remote sensing indices, will allow the evaluation and estimation of the impact of climate change scenarios on environmental services and the ecology of each successional stage in each site.