Ecosystems

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 340–353

Demographic Drivers of Aboveground Biomass Dynamics During Secondary Succession in Neotropical Dry and Wet Forests

  • Danaë M. A. Rozendaal
  • Robin L. Chazdon
  • Felipe Arreola-Villa
  • Patricia Balvanera
  • Tony V. Bentos
  • Juan M. Dupuy
  • J. Luis Hernández-Stefanoni
  • Catarina C. Jakovac
  • Edwin E. Lebrija-Trejos
  • Madelon Lohbeck
  • Miguel Martínez-Ramos
  • Paulo E. S. Massoca
  • Jorge A. Meave
  • Rita C. G. Mesquita
  • Francisco Mora
  • Eduardo A. Pérez-García
  • I. Eunice Romero-Pérez
  • Irving Saenz-Pedroza
  • Michiel van Breugel
  • G. Bruce Williamson
  • Frans Bongers
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-0029-4

Cite this article as:
Rozendaal, D.M.A., Chazdon, R.L., Arreola-Villa, F. et al. Ecosystems (2017) 20: 340. doi:10.1007/s10021-016-0029-4

Abstract

The magnitude of the carbon sink in second-growth forests is expected to vary with successional biomass dynamics resulting from tree growth, recruitment, and mortality, and with the effects of climate on these dynamics. We compare aboveground biomass dynamics of dry and wet Neotropical forests, based on monitoring data gathered over 3–16 years in forests covering the first 25 years of succession. We estimated standing biomass, annual biomass change, and contributions of tree growth, recruitment, and mortality. We also evaluated tree species’ contributions to biomass dynamics. Absolute rates of biomass change were lower in dry forests, 2.3 and 1.9 Mg ha−1 y−1, after 5–15 and 15–25 years after abandonment, respectively, than in wet forests, with 4.7 and 6.1 Mg ha−1 y−1, in the same age classes. Biomass change was largely driven by tree growth, accounting for at least 48% of biomass change across forest types and age classes. Mortality also contributed strongly to biomass change in wet forests of 5–15 years, whereas its contribution became important later in succession in dry forests. Biomass dynamics tended to be dominated by fewer species in early-successional dry than wet forests, but dominance was strong in both forest types. Overall, our results indicate that biomass dynamics during succession are faster in Neotropical wet than dry forests, with high tree mortality earlier in succession in the wet forests. Long-term monitoring of second-growth tropical forest plots is crucial for improving estimates of annual biomass change, and for enhancing understanding of the underlying mechanisms and demographic drivers.

Keywords

Biomass accumulation carbon sink forest dynamics Neotropics species’ dominance tree demography second-growth tropical forest 

Supplementary material

10021_2016_29_MOESM1_ESM.docx (202 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 201 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danaë M. A. Rozendaal
    • 1
    • 2
    • 15
  • Robin L. Chazdon
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Felipe Arreola-Villa
    • 5
  • Patricia Balvanera
    • 5
  • Tony V. Bentos
    • 6
  • Juan M. Dupuy
    • 7
  • J. Luis Hernández-Stefanoni
    • 7
  • Catarina C. Jakovac
    • 2
    • 6
  • Edwin E. Lebrija-Trejos
    • 8
    • 9
  • Madelon Lohbeck
    • 2
    • 5
    • 10
  • Miguel Martínez-Ramos
    • 5
  • Paulo E. S. Massoca
    • 6
  • Jorge A. Meave
    • 11
  • Rita C. G. Mesquita
    • 6
  • Francisco Mora
    • 5
    • 11
  • Eduardo A. Pérez-García
    • 11
  • I. Eunice Romero-Pérez
    • 11
  • Irving Saenz-Pedroza
    • 7
  • Michiel van Breugel
    • 8
    • 12
    • 13
  • G. Bruce Williamson
    • 6
    • 14
  • Frans Bongers
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Forest Ecology and Forest Management GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.International Institute for SustainabilityRio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  5. 5.Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y SustentabilidadUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMexico
  6. 6.Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project, Coordenação de Dinâmica AmbientalInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da AmazôniaManausBrazil
  7. 7.Unidad de Recursos NaturalesCentro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán (CICY)MéridaMexico
  8. 8.Smithsonian ForestGEOSmithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaPanama
  9. 9.Department of Biology and the Environment, Faculty of Natural SciencesUniversity of Haifa-OranimTivonIsrael
  10. 10.World Agroforestry CentreNairobiKenya
  11. 11.Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCiudad de MéxicoMexico
  12. 12.Yale-NUS CollegeSingaporeSingapore
  13. 13.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  14. 14.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  15. 15.Department of BiologyUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada