Shoestring2014 10-light
-
Upload
melnhe -
Category
Environment
-
view
130 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Shoestring2014 10-light
![Page 1: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
I mean a lot more than I
look….
Hungry and neglected seedlings: Does light matter more than
nutrients?
Presented by: Shinjini Goswami
Contact: [email protected]
![Page 2: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Why do we care about seedlings in a forest?
Reproductive adult density &
distribution
Seed density & distribution
Seedling density &
distribution
Forest regeneration
potential
Seed production per adult (timing)
Seed dispersal in space
Seed to seedling transition stage (time & space)
Survival, persistence and growth
Possible limiting factors
![Page 3: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Why do we care about seedlings in a forest?
Reproductive adult density &
distribution
Seed density & distribution
Seedling density &
distribution
Forest regeneration
potential
Seed production per adult (timing)
Seed dispersal in space
Seed to seedling transition stage (time & space)
Survival, persistence and growth
Possible limiting factors
Light?Nutrients?Moisture?
![Page 4: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Seedlings- Rapid response to fertilization- Whole plant allocation patterns (variable among species)- survivorship future regeneration potential
Sugar MapleBeech
![Page 5: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
• Seedlings- Rapid response to fertilization- Whole plant allocation patterns (variable among species)- survivorship future regeneration potential
• Sugar maple and American beech masted in most of MELNHE mature forest stands in 2011; same year we started fertilization
Sugar MapleBeech
![Page 6: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Questions:
• Does seedling allocation respond to nutrient, light, or water resources?
• Which resources most influence survivorship?
![Page 7: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
All seedlings (<50 cm): identified to species and surveyed from 2012
Studying allocation response to nutrients, moisture and light:
• Harvested 20 beech and sugar maple seedlings/treatment plot in 3 mature stands
• Root:Shoot was calculated on mass basis
• Soil moisture and canopy cover was measured for each seedling subplot
Study design and methods
![Page 8: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
C N NP P
See
dlin
g b
iom
ass
(g)
Beech
Sugar maple
Biomass growth was not nutrient limited in the first 2 years (p= 0.14)
![Page 9: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
R² = 0.2114
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
20 22 24 26 28 30
see
dlin
g b
iom
ass
(g)
Soil moisture
Beech
Sugar maple
Seedling biomass differed significantly between the two species (p< 0.00)
Sugar maple biomass growth increased with soil moisture (p= 0.12)
![Page 10: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Shallow rooting by sugar maple may cause moisture sensitivity
![Page 11: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
P increased relative allocation to roots in sugar maple (p= 0.02)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
C N NP P
Ro
ot:
Sh
oo
t
Beech
Sugar maple
![Page 12: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
C N NP P
See
dlin
g su
rviv
ors
hip
(%
)
Beech
Sugar maple
N decreased sugar maple survivorship (p= 0.07)
![Page 13: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94%
See
dlin
g su
rviv
ors
hip
(%
)
Canopy cover
Sugar maple
Beech
Survivorship of beech (p= 0.09) and sugar maple (p= 0.03) decreased with increasing canopy cover
Response to light availability
![Page 14: Shoestring2014 10-light](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051516/5596f27f1a28abc73d8b45cb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Conclusions
• Beech seedlings are relatively non-plastic with respect to the variables measured
• Seedling survivorship depends on light availability but not strongly
• It is unclear why fertilizing with N reduces survivorship.
• Seedling mortality at earlier life stages might be mostly stochastic; possibly under the canopy environmental variables are not important at this life stage