Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:28:01.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Allometric differentiation among tropical tree seedlings in heath and peat-swamp forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2001

TAKASHI B. NISHIMURA
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan Present address. Correspondence to T.B. Nishimura, Institute for Global Change Research, 1-18-16 Hamamatsucho, Minatoku, Tokyo 105-0013, Japan. Email: ntaka@frontier.esto.or.jp
EIZI SUZUKI
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-0010, Japan

Abstract

Above- and below-ground morphology of seedlings (up to 98 cm in height) were compared by allometric analyses in tropical heath forest and peat-swamp forest in Central Kalimantan. Thirteen abundant species were selected, including two species found in both forests. In above-ground morphology, heath forest seedlings invested more in leaf mass, while peat-swamp forest seedlings invested more in stem mass, stem height, crown area and leaf area. In below-ground morphology, heath forest seedlings invested more in root mass and depth, while peat-swamp forest seedlings invested more in lateral development of the root system. Both specific leaf area and area per leaf of heath forest seedlings were lower than those of peat-swamp forest seedlings. This differentiation in seedling morphology between forest types was evident as a plastic response in the two shared species. Heath forest seedlings on coarse-textured bleached sand with low water retention suffer occasional drought whereas peat-swamp forest seedlings on waterlogged peat rarely experience drought. We concluded that seasonal water limitation brought about the convergence in seedling morphology within heath forest because average understorey irradiances and soil nutrient concentration were assumed to be similarly low in both forests.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)