Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 13, Issue 13, pp 2399–2417 | Cite as

Mesoscale transect sampling of trees in the lomako–yekokora interfluvium, democratic republic of the Congo

  • Jean Philippe Boubli
  • Jonas Eriksson
  • Serge Wich
  • Gottfried Hohmann
  • Barbara Fruth
Article

Abstract

We conducted a mesoscale transect sampling of trees ≥10 cm DBH in the Lomako–Yekokora interfluvial forest, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our objective was to characterize the forest landscape contained between the Lomako and Yekokora rivers in terms of its floristic composition and to investigate how representative the Lomako study site, the location of a long-term study of primates, was of the entire forest block. Fifteen transects were laid out at seven sample stations placed approximately 10 km apart and alongside a 70 km trail running from the Lomako study site to the margins of the Yekokora river. Three transects totaling 3.65 ha were laid out at the Lomako study site and two transects totaling 2 ha at each of the remaining six sample stations, amounting to 15.65 ha in total. Average DBH, tree density, tree species richness and floristic composition were determined for each transect. There were 5353 trees ≥10 cm DBH in the total sample, representing 150 species in 35 families. Caesalpinoideae trees dominated the sample followed by Olacaceae and Annonaceae. Four forest types were identified: mixed primary (57% of the sampled plots), secondary forest (9%), Gilbertiodendron (22%), and swamp (12%). The seven sample stations differed from each other in average DBH, tree density, tree species richness and floristic composition. Most of the difference, however, was due to the fact that the four forest types were not equally represented at each sample station. When forest types were contrasted independently, a marked difference in average DBH, tree density, tree species richness and floristic composition was recorded. Conversely, when only mixed primary forest was analyzed across the sample stations, no significant difference was detected except for average DBH. Thus the Lomako study site is representative of the forest landscape contained between the Lomako and Yekokora rivers only when the different forest types are treated separately. The sample stations (including Lomako) differ from each other, however, in the proportional contribution of each forest type.

Africa Democratic Republic of the Congo Floristics Transect sampling Tropical trees 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Connell J.and Lowman M.D.1989. Low-diversity tropical rain forests:some possible mechanisms for their existence. American Naturalist 134: 88–119.Google Scholar
  2. Dasilva G.L.1994. Diet of Colubus Polykomos on Tiwai Island:selection of food in relation to its seasonal abundance and nutritional quality. International Journal of Primatology 15: 655–678.Google Scholar
  3. Devred R. 1958. La Vegetation Forestiere du Congo Belge et du Ruanda-Urundi. Bulletin de la SociétéRoyale Forestiere de Belgique 65: 409–468.Google Scholar
  4. Fruth B.1995. Nests and nest groups in wild bonobos (Pan paniscus ):ecological and behavioural correlates. In: Biologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Germany,187 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Gauthier Poulin Thériault and Ltée 1977. Manuel de Dendrologie. ACDICI, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Gautier-Hion A., Gautier J.P. and Maisels F.1993. Seed dispersal versus seed predation:an intersite comparison of two related African monkeys.Vegetatio 107/108: 237–244.Google Scholar
  7. Gerard P.1960. Etude Écologique de la Forêt Dense à Gilbertiodendron dewevrei dans la Région de l'Uele. No. 87 Publication de l'Institute National pour l'Étude Agronomique du Congo Belge (INÉAC),Série Scientifique No. 87, 159 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Germain R.and Evrard C.1956. Etude Écologique et Phytosociologique de la Forêtà Brachystegia laurentii.Vol. 67. Publications de l'Institute National pour l'Étude Agronomique du Congo Belge, pp.1–105.Google Scholar
  9. Hart T.B., Hart J.A. and Murphy P.G.1989. Monodominant and species-rich forests of the humid tropics:causes for their co-occurrence. American Naturalist 133(5): 613–633.Google Scholar
  10. Hartshorn G.S. 1980. Neotropical forest dynamics. Biotropica 12: 23–30.Google Scholar
  11. Juo A.S.R. and Wilding L.P.1996. Soils of the lowlands of west and central Africa. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 104B: 5–29.Google Scholar
  12. Kortlandt A.1995. A survey of the geographical range,habitats and conservation of the Pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus );An ecological perspective. Primate Conservation 16: 21–36.Google Scholar
  13. Krebs C.J.1999. Ecological methodology. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  14. Lebrun J. and Gilbert G.1954. Une Classi cation Écologique des Forêts du Congo. Publication de l'Institute National pour l'Étude Agronomique du Congo Belge (INÉAC),Série Scientifique, pp.63–89.Google Scholar
  15. Letouzey R.1969. Manuel de Botanique Forestière, Afrique Tropicale. Centre Technique Forestier Tropical, Marne, France.Google Scholar
  16. Letouzey R.1972. Manuel de Botanique Forestière, Afrique Tropicale, Centre Technique Forestier Tropical, Marne, France.Google Scholar
  17. Ludwig J.A. and Reynolds J.F.1988. Statistical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Maisels F.1996. Synthesis of information concerning the Park National D'Odzala,Congo. Projet Ecofac-Composante Congo. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  19. Maisels F., Gautier-Hion A. and Gautier J.P.1994. Diets of two sympatric colobines in Zaire:more evidence on seed-eating in forests on poor soils. International Journal of Primatology 15: 681–701.Google Scholar
  20. Newbery D.M. and Gartland J.S.1996. A structural analysis of rain forest at Korup and Douala-Edea,Cameroon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 104B: 177–224.Google Scholar
  21. Newbery D.M., Alexander I.J., Thomas D.W. and Gartlan J.S.1988. Ectomycorrhizal rain-forest legumes and soil-phosphorus in Korup-National-Park,Cameroon. New Phytologist 109: 433–450.Google Scholar
  22. Oates J.F., Whitesides G.H., Davies A.G., Waterman P.G., Green S.M., Dasilva G.L. and Mole S. 1990.Determinants of variation in tropical forest primate biomass: new evidence from west Africa. Ecology 71: 328–343.Google Scholar
  23. Pielou E.C.1974. Population and Community Ecology. Gordon & Breach, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Pitman N.C.A., Terborgh J., Silman M.R.and Nunez P.1999. Tree species distributions in an upper Amazonian forest. Ecology 80: 2651–2661.Google Scholar
  25. Richards P.W.1973. The tropical rainforest. Africa, the ‘Odd man out’. In: Meggers B.J., Ayensu E.S.and Duckworth W.D.(eds). Tropical Forest Ecosystems in Africa and South America: Comparative Review. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Richards P.W.1996. The Tropical Rain Forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Struhsaker T.T.1975. The Red Colobus Monkey. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  28. Terborgh J.and Andresen E.1998. The composition of Amazonian forests:patterns at local and regional scales. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 645–664.Google Scholar
  29. Tutin C.E.G., Ham R.M., White L.J.T. and Harrison M.J.S.1997. The primate community of the Lope Reserve, Gabon:diets, responses to fruit scarcity and effects on biomass.American Journal of Primatology 42: 1–24.Google Scholar
  30. Vivien J.and Faure J.J.1985. Arbres des Forêts Denses d'Afrique Centrale. Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  31. White F.1983. The Vegetation of Africa. UNESCO, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  32. Wiese B.1980. Zaire: Landesnatur, Bevolverung, Wirtscha. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Philippe Boubli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jonas Eriksson
    • 2
  • Serge Wich
    • 3
  • Gottfried Hohmann
    • 2
  • Barbara Fruth
    • 4
  1. 1.Estação Biológica de CaratingaIpanemaBrazil
  2. 2.Zoological Society of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Ethology and Socioecology GroupUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Max-Planck-Institut für VerhaltensphysiologieSeewiesenGermany

Personalised recommendations