Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 637–646 | Cite as

Ecological species groups and interspecific association of dominant tree species in Daiyun Mountain National Nature Reserve

  • Song-jin Su
  • Jin-fu LiuEmail author
  • Zhong-sheng He
  • Shi-qun Zheng
  • Wei Hong
  • Dao-wei Xu
Article

Abstract

Research on the ecological species groups and interspecific association of plant species are helpful to discover species coexistence processes and mechanisms, and to more fully understand plant community structure, function, and its taxonomy. However, little is known about the ecological species groups (ESG) and the interspecific association of dominant species in Daiyun Mountain National Nature Reserve of Fujian Province, China. Therefore, the main goal of this paper is to explore the ESG using maximal tree, and to analyze interspecific associations of 32 dominant species selected from 102 sample plots using the chi-square test. The results show that: (1) 32 dominant species have a significant overall positive interspecific association, which indicates that the natural forest in Daiyun Mountain National Nature Reserve is stable, (2) The species pairs with weak associations, non-associations and positive associations account for 10.88%, 29.64% and 59.48% of the total 496 species pairs respectively, which suggests that the population distributions of the dominant species investigated are relatively independent, (3) The following species pairs may be useful for practical application, 〈Pinus taiwanensis, Rhododendron farrerae〉, 〈Castanopsis carlesii, Altingia chinensis〉, 〈C. carlesii, Castanopsis fargesii〉, 〈Castanopsis eyrei, C. fargesii〉, 〈P. taiwanensis, Fagus lucida〉, 〈Machilus thunbergii, Castanopsis nigrescens〉, and (4) The results of clustering analysis based on the maximal tree method indicates that the 32 dominant species can be divided into 3 ESGs when λ at 0.60, that is ESG I {Pinus massoniana, Cunning hamia lanceolata}, ESG II {P. taiwanensis, R. farrerae, Enkianthus quinqueflorus}, ESG III {C. carlesii, A. chinensis, C. eyrei, Castanopsis fabri, C. fargesii, Schima superba, Machilus thunbergii, Rhododendron latoucheae}. The results may be used for the selection of afforestation tree species in South China Forest Areas and guide the natural management of plantations.

Keywords

Ecological Species Groups Interspecific Association Daiyun Mountain National Nature Reserve Maximal Tree 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abella SR, Covington WW (2006) Vegetation environment relationships and ecological species groups of an Arizona Pinus ponderosa landscape, USA. Plant Ecology 185: 255–268. DOI: 10.1007/s11258-006-9102-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abella SR, Shelburne VB (2004) Ecological species groups of South Carolina’s Jocassee Gorges, southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 131(3): 220–231. DOI: 10.2307/4126952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergeron Y, Bouchard A (1983) Use of ecological groups in analysis and classification of plant communities in a section of western Quebec. Vegetatio 56(1): 45–63. DOI: 10.1007/BF00036136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen XJ, Hu XD, Shuai TP (2006) Inapproximability and approximability of maximal tree routing and coloring. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 11: 219–229. DOI: 10.1007/s10878-006-7135-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gidudu B, Copeland RS, Wanda F, et al. (2011) Distribution, interspecific associations and abundance of aquatic plants in Lake Bisina, Uganda. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 49: 19–27.Google Scholar
  6. Green AJ, Mustapha EH (2006) Interspecific associations in habitat use between marbled teal and other waterbirds wintering at Sidi Bou Ghaba, Morocco. Ardeola 53(1): 99–106.Google Scholar
  7. Hong W, Chen MX (1990) Calculation and application of interspecific associations of broad-leaved trees in the North Fujian. Scientia Silvae Sinicae 26(2): 175–181. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  8. Jalilvand H, Kooch Y, Bahamnyar MA, et al. (2007) Ecological species groups of hornbeam forest ecosystems in Southern Caspian (North of Iran). Journal of Biological Sciences 7: 1504–1510. DOI: 10.3923/jbs.2007.1504.1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jian MF, Liu QJ, Zhu D, et al. (2009), Interspecific correlations among dominant populations of tree layer species in evergreen broad-leaved forest in Jiulianshan Mountain of subtropical China, Chinese. Journal of Plant Ecology 33(4): 672–680. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. Kashian DM, Barnes BV, Walker WS (2003) Ecological species groups of landform-level ecosystems dominated by jack pine in northern Lower Michigan, USA. Plant Ecology 166: 75–91. DOI: 10.1023/A: 1023265012964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kunwar RM, Mahat L, Sharma LN, et al. (2012) Underutilized plant species in far west Nepal. Journal of Mountain Science 9(5): 589–600. DOI: 10.1007/s11629-012-2315-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lan GY, Getzin S, Wiegand T, et al. (2012) Spatial distribution and interspecific associations of tree species in a tropical seasonal rain forest of China. PLOS ONE 7(9): 1–9. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li YD, Xu H, Chen DX, et al. (2008) Division of ecological species groups and functional groups based on interspecific association — a case study of the tree layer in the tropical lowland rainforest of Jianfenling in Hainan Island, China. Frontiers of Forestry in China 3(4): 407–415. DOI: 10.1007/s11461-008-0049-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li SX, Chen Y, Gao HD, et al. (2010) Potential chromosomal introgression barriers revealed by linkage analysis in a hybrid of Pinus massoniana and P. hwangshanensis. BMC Plant Biology 10: 37. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-10-37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lin SZ, Cao GQ, Yu XT, et al. (2001) A selection of suitable multi-purpose associated tree species for Chinese fir. Scientia Silvae Sinicae 37(special issue): 24–29. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. Liu JF, Huang ZS, Fu DL, et al. (2010) Study on compositions and geographical elements of vascular plants in castanopsis fabri community, Daiyun Mountain. Journal of Wuhan Botanical Research 28(1): 27–33. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  17. Meyer HA (2006) Interspecific association and substrate specificity in Tardigrades from Florida, Southeastern United States. Hydrobiologia 558: 129–132. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-005-1411-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piao S, Fang JY, Ciais P, et al. (2009) The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Nature 458: 1009–1012. DOI: 10.1038/nature07944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Piche J, Iverson SJ, Parrish FA (2010) Characterization of forage fish and invertebrates in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands using fatty acid signatures: species and ecological groups. Marine Ecology progress series 418: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rad JE, Shafiei AB (2010) The distribution of ecological species groups in fagetum communities of Caspian forest: Determination of effective environmental factors. Flora 205(11): 721–727. DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2010.04.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schluter DA. 1984. Variance test for detecting species associations, with some example applications. Ecology 65(3): 998–1005. DOI: 10.2307/1938071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spies TA, Barnes BV (1985) Ecological species groups of upland northern hardwood-hemlock forest ecosystems of the Sylvania Recreation Area, Upper Peninsula, Michigan. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15: 961–972. DOI: 10.1139/x85-153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang XG, Wiegand T, Hao Z, et al. (2010) Species associations in an old-growth temperate forest in north-eastern China. Journal of Ecology 98: 674–686. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01644.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang FY, Wang YC (1987) Methematical classification of ecological species groups in virgin forests on south slope of Xiaoxing’anling mountains. Journal of northeast forestry university 15(6): 1–7. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. taxon 21(2/3): 213–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Witte JPM (2002) The descriptive capacity of ecological plant species groups. Plant Ecology 162: 199–213 DOI: 10.1023/A:1020370629402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wiegand T, Gunatilleke S, Gunatilleke N (2007) Species associations in a heterogeneous Sri Lankan dipterocarp forest. American Naturalist 170: 77–95. DOI: 10.1086/521240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang ZH, Hu G, Zhu JD, et al. (2010) Spatial patterns and interspecific associations of dominant tree species in two oldgrowth karst forests, SW China. Ecological Research 25: 1151–1160 DOI: 10.1007/s11284-010-0740-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zheng SQ, Liu JF, Huang ZS, et al. (2012) Nutrition ecological niche of dominant arbor species in Castanopsis fabri forest in Daiyun Mountain. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany 20(2): 177–183. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Zhu DH, Liu JF, Hong W, et al. (2012) Studies on regeneration niche of main species in Pinus taiwanensis community in Daiyun Mountain. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany 20(6): 561–565. (In Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Song-jin Su
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jin-fu Liu
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Zhong-sheng He
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shi-qun Zheng
    • 1
    • 3
  • Wei Hong
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dao-wei Xu
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Fujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.Fujian Sanming Forest SchoolSanmingChina
  3. 3.Cross-Strait Nature Reserve Research CentreFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations