Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
1 January 2020 Reproductive Phenology of Central Amazon Pioneer Trees
Tony V. Bentos, Rita C. G. Mesquita, G. Bruce Williamson
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

This study characterizes the flowering and fruiting phenology of the 13 most common pioneer tree species in early successional forests of the Central Amazon. For each species, 30 individuals, 10 each in three secondary forests, were monitored monthly for four years at the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project, north of Manaus. Five species showed nearly continuous flowering and fruiting throughout the study, indicating that resources were available to pollinators and dispersers on a regular basis. The other eight species showed stronger seasonality in reproduction, seven of them annually, and one supra-annually. Overall, flowering was concentrated in the transition from the dry to the rainy season and fruiting was concentrated in the rainy season. There was no relationship between reproductive phenology and tree pollinator type or dispersal mode. Reproductive phenology was remarkably consistent year to year. The pioneer community showed a variety of phenological patterns but as a whole tended to be characterized by annual flowering and fruiting, either continuously or seasonally, thereby fitting generalizations of pioneer species relative to mature forest species.

Introduction

Tropical pioneer species fulfill important ecosystem functions through soil development, nutrient and water cycling, forest structure development, and production of flowers and fruits for pollinators and dispersers. Despite their importance, basic life-history data on the autecology of Neotropical pioneers, especially phenological reports, are scarce [1].

It has been postulated that pioneers begin reproduction at a young age, and then reproduce annually, often continuously throughout the year [2]. However, studies of colonizers reveal significant variation among them in the timing and quantity of reproduction [34567]. Such variation is inevitable given that pioneers naturally occupy a wide array of spatially, ephemeral clearings and light gaps and that pioneers have evolved from a wide range of plant families [6]. Still, ecologically, they seem to share certain functional traits [1, 2].

In the Central Amazon, most studies of phenology of trees in upland, unflooded (terre firme) sites have focused on species in mature forests, attempting to relate phenology to climatic variables [891011121314151617]. Usually pioneers are excluded from these studies, although data on a few pioneer species in mature forest have been recorded. However, there have been no studies of pioneer species where they commonly regenerate, namely, open secondary habitats exposed to full solar radiation.

Here, our objective is to characterize the reproductive phenology of the 13 most abundant pioneer tree species in young secondary forests of the Central Amazon. All 13 occur in mixed species' associations in abandoned pastures, roadside clearings, forest clearcuts, and natural light gaps in mature forest. Disturbance and logging in Central Amazonia are often followed by attempted conversion of forest to pasture or agriculture. Low nutrient content of these ancient and weathered soils results in abandonment within a few years [18]. Subsequently, succession by native pioneer species that utilize full sunlight for growth and reproduction occurs naturally, although often irregularly as a result of differential colonization [19]. Alternative successional pathways may develop from different initial colonizations, reflecting land-use history and different life-history characteristics of the initial colonizers themselves [19]. Nevertheless, the most common pioneer species appear capable of colonizing most sites since they frequently occur together, although these same species may show some niche partitioning of light gaps in mature forests [20]. The two most prevalent genera, Cecropia and Vismia, each comprising several species, dominate initial pioneer communities throughout the central and eastern portions of Amazonia, as well as throughout much of Brazil's Atlantic Coastal Forest [20].

Despite advances in our understanding of community phenological traits for different tropical ecosystems, we still know little about the proximal cues that determine phenological events. Tropical communities are composed of diverse species, usually exhibiting diverse phenologies [212223]. Biotic factors have been hypothesized to be the ultimate causes in the evolution of phenological patterns, whereas abiotic factors are more often the proximal stimuli for phenological events. In various tropical forests, many canopy species flower in the dry season, stimulated to flower by drought, photoperiod, temperature or leaflessness [242526272829], and various hypotheses have been proposed to explain dry season flowering—i.e., reduced hydric stress, increased pollinator activity, less damage to flowers from rain [30313233]. Similarly, many studies have shown that the rainy season is associated with fruiting, seed dispersal, production of new leaves, and tree growth [25, 28, 3435363738]. The effects of proximal factors in determining phenological patterns have been determined through rigorous experimentation for only a handful of tropical species [21, 34, 39].

Here, we take a necessary first step for 13 species of pioneers in the Central Amazon by monitoring flowering and fruiting of 30 trees of each species, monthly over four years.

Fig. 1.

(a.) In unburned clearings, Cecropia sciadophylla dominates the canopy due to its rapid height growth, but (b.) the lower strata are quite diverse, here shown with the phenological observation team.

10.1177_194008290800100303-fig1.tif

Methods

This study was carried out at the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP). The BDFFP reserves are located on terra firme in tropical moist forest [40], about 80 km north of Manaus in the state of Amazonas, Brazil (2°30'S, 60°W) [41]. Mean annual rainfall measured in one of the reserves averaged 2,651 mm, with a distinct, but mild, dry season [42]. Mean annual temperature is 26° C [43]. The regional climate is type Am in the Koeppen system [44]: humid tropical with excessive rains from January to May and a moderate dry season from June to December, with an occasional month of less than 100 mm precipitation [41,45]. Soils of the region are classified as yellow latisols (Ultisol) and red-yellow podzols (Oxisol) [46].

Between 1980 and 1984, three large ranches (>10,000ha) were created by clear-cutting extensive, unfragmented forest, leaving 11 isolated forest fragments [47]. The resulting ranches were abandoned after clearcutting or converted to pasture, burned irregularly several years, and subsequently abandoned. Whereas the forest fragments formed the initial core for research, the surrounding matrix has become a second focus of long-term studies, this one on secondary succession with known land-use histories [19].

We monitored pioneer tree reproductive phenology at three sites within two of the ranches: Florestal and Cidade de Powell at the Esteio Ranch and an unnamed site in the northeastern quadrant of the Porto Alegre Ranch. The secondary growth areas utilized in this study were clearcut in 1984, followed by abandonment leading to a mixed species association which has been characterized as Cecropia dominant because Cecropia rapidly achieves height dominance [19] (Fig. 1a). Other portions of the ranches that were converted to pastures and periodically burned before abandonment are characterized by dominance of Vismia.

The 13 pioneer species chosen for study are the dominant early colonizers of the study area and of the terra firme in the Central Amazon (Table 1). They pertain to nine widely distributed families, characteristic of Neotropical secondary growth [45, 48]. Besides dominating abandoned agricultural areas, the species are found commonly in natural forest light gaps, and some of them occur in mature forest canopies at low densities [19, 45, 49].

For phenological observations over a four-year period, 30 adult individuals (≥ 5cm DBH) were selected indiscriminately along three different trails, 10 individuals per trail, each in extensive patches of secondary forest at one of the three sites. The 5-cm minimum DBH criterion was based on preliminary records of 90 individuals of each species, which showed that some species were reproductive at the 5 cm DBH (Table 1). At each monthly census, trees were inspected with binoculars for presence of four reproductive structures: flower buds, flowers, immature fruits and mature fruits, following methods of Fournier [50] (Fig. 1b).

Two phenophases were defined—flowering, which included the presence of flower buds and/or flowers, and fruiting, which included the presence of immature and/or mature fruits. Flowering and fruiting were calculated as the percentage of the number of reproductive individuals for each species. As some individuals proved too small to reproduce, calculations of monthly presence of reproductive structures were percentages of individuals that reproduced each year or in previous years. For one species, Goupia glabra, there were no reproductive individuals for the first seven months of the four years of observation.

Table 1.

Pioneer species studied, their plant families, abbreviated species codes used in subsequent figures, minimum DBH (cm) for flowering, known pollinators, known dispersers, and sources for pollinators and dispersers. Abbreviations for pollinators and dispersers are bs=bees, bd=birds, bt=bats, mk=monkeys. Sources in the literature are [5657585960, 62]. Species are listed alphabetically by family.

10.1177_194008290800100303-table1.tif

We expected to place species into discrete phenological classes, based on flowering and fruiting characteristics—(1) seasonality, (2) intensity, and (3) periodicity—proposed by Newstrom [51]: The classes were continuous, sub-annual seasonal, annual seasonal, or super-annual, where continuous would indicate flowering or fruiting activity throughout the year, sub-annual flowering or fruiting would be characterized by two or more seasonal reproductive events per year, annual seasonal would represent one seasonal reproductive event per year, and supra-annual reproduction would exhibit activity in some years but not others. Classifying the species was aided by statistical analysis below.

Differences from continuous flowering or fruiting were determined with circular statistical tests of seasonality [5253]. For each species separately, the proportion of individuals fruiting per month was averaged over the four years and used to determine the species' mean angle (µ) and vector length (r). The mean angle indicates the mean date of the phenological event. As we had monitored phenological events at the end of each month, we assigned months the following angles: Jan=30°, Feb=60°, …. Dec=360°. The vector length reflects the seasonality in the event and can vary from 0 for perfectly continuous to 1 for perfectly seasonal [54]. The statistical significance of each vector was determined by the Rayleigh (z) test for deviations from a circularly uniform distribution with Oriana 2.0 software [55].

To test for effects of rainfall on reproductive activities, we produced Spearman rank correlations between the proportion of individuals with a reproductive structure in a month and rainfall that month for each species. The correlations were computed for each year separately, but they were so similar among the four years that we proceeded to average monthly reproductive activity and monthly rainfall and then computed the correlation coefficients. We also computed correlations between monthly reproductive activity and monthly rainfall for one and two months later and one and two months prior to check for potential lag effects.

Finally, to investigate potential associations between phenophases and mutualists, we gathered data on pollinators and seed dispersal agents from direct observations and from the literature [56575859606162]. We then looked for possible interactions between seasonality and mutualist type, expecting possible associations, for example, between bee pollination and dry-season flowering.

Results

Mean annual precipitation over the four years of study was 2,589 mm (Fig. 2). The distribution of precipitation exhibited a relatively normal annual pattern with a five-month rainy season from January through May, with mean rainfall of 330 mm a month, followed by a seven-month dry season from June through December with a mean rainfall of 134 mm a month (Fig. 2). March was the wettest month the first three years, and January the wettest in the fourth year of study. The driest month was August in 2002 (46 mm), December in 2003 (67 mm) and in 2004 (49 mm), and September in 2005 (68 mm). The 2002−2006 records at the Port of Manaus, 80km south of the BDFFP, were normal relative to the Port's long-term records. There was no unusual drought during the study as sometimes occurs in an El Niño year [63].

Minimum DBH for fruiting varied from 15.7 cm DBH in Laetia procera to 2.9 cm DBH for Isertia hypoleuca (Table 1) in our preliminary survey of 90 trees of each species across DBH sizes of 1.0−30.0 cm.

Patterns of flowering for individual species varied from continuous to supra-annual (Fig. 3, Table 2). Continuous flowering characterized five species, most uniform in Bellucia grossularioides (Table 2). Seven species exhibited patterns of seasonal flowering (Table 2, Fig. 3); Laetia, the two Vismia species and the two Cecropia species, flowered during the dry season, but two others, Byrsonima and Miconia, flowered in the rainy season (Fig. 3). Finally, one species, C. lanjouwensis, exhibited supra-annual reproduction, flowering in the rainy season every other year (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2.

Number of species producing flowers or fruits, together with annual rainfall, from June 2002 through May 2006.

10.1177_194008290800100303-fig2.tif

Patterns of fruiting, like flowering, varied among species from continuous to supra-annual (Fig. 4, Table 2). Continuous fruiting characterized three species, Belllucia grossularioides, Isertia hypoleuca, and Goupia glabra. Nine other species exhibited annual seasonal fruiting (Fig. 4, Table 2). Only one species, C. lanjouwensis, showed supra-annual reproduction, fruiting once every two years.

Generally, species that were seasonal in flowering exhibited similar seasonality in flower buds, unripe fruit and ripe fruit (Table 2). While significant seasonality in “r” values was more frequent in ripe fruits (10 sp) than in flowers (8 sp), the relative size of the “r” values across all species was no different for flowering and fruiting, therein suggesting that the overall degree of seasonality between flowering and fruiting did not differ. Of course, flowering tended to occur before fruiting, but variably so, ranging from 1−6 months prior. Overall, the mean flowering date occurred most often in the dry season, whereas mean fruiting date was split between the dry season and the wet season (Table 2).

Throughout each of the 48 months of study, flowers and fruits were produced by one to many species. The number of species flowering each month varied from 6 to 11 and the number fruiting each month varied from 6 to 12 (Fig. 2). In general, the highest number of species flowered during December and January, which is the transition from the dry season to the rainy season. The fewest number of species flowered in the latter half of the rainy season, March to June. The highest number of species fruited in the first half of the rainy season, January through March. The fewest number fruited in the first half of the dry season, July and August, although fruiting ebbed earlier in 2005 (Fig. 2).

Table 2.

Mean dates for reproductive structures (µ) and degree of seasonality (r) for flower buds, flowers, unripe fruit and ripe fruit for 13 pioneer species over four years, 2002 to 2006. Significant (P<0.05) seasonality is indicated by an asterisk. Species are ranked by degree of seasonality in flowering (r). No correction has been made for the number of tests, 52.

10.1177_194008290800100303-table2.tif

Although the pioneer community as a whole showed a tendency to flower in transition from the dry season to wet season and to fruit early in the wet season, the species-specific Spearman correlations of production of flowers or fruits with rainfall were rarely significant even when monthly lags were applied to the rainfall data (Table 3). At most, only three of the 13 species showed significant correlations with a given monthly precipitation or its lag.

All 13 species were pollinated by animals, mostly by bees, a few species by bats, and one species by hummingbirds (Table 1). Dispersal was spread relatively evenly among birds, bats, and primates, as well as one species by d(Table 1). There was no association of flowering season with pollinator type, nor fruiting season with dispersal agent (Table 1).

Table 3.

Spearman correlation coefficients of proportion flowering or fruiting each month with monthly precipitation (0), and for precipation one and two (+1, +2) months after flowering or fruiting and for precipation one and two (−1, −2) months before flowering or fruiting. Coefficients shown in bold are statistically significant for P<0.05 when the coefficient is greater than 0.59, and for P<0.01 when the coefficient is greater than 0.78. No correction has been made for the number of tests, 130. Species are ranked as in Table 2.

10.1177_194008290800100303-table3.tif

Discussion

Over the course of the study, flowering was most concentrated in the transition from the dry season to the rainy season, and fruiting was most concentrated in the rainy season. Flowering in the dry season is clearly advantageous for pollination as heavy rains can inhibit pollinator activity and damage flowers. Flowering late in the dry season facilitates immediate production of fruits during the rainy season, a time when seed germination and establishment depend on available soil water. Fruiting early in the rainy season ensures a favorable period for the seedling to develop a root system capable of weathering the subsequent dry season [25], and since 12 of our 13 species are dispersed by birds and mammals, fruiting during the rainy season is unlikely to hinder dispersal. Thus, although phenological patterns varied among species, our pioneer community as a whole exhibited what might be interpreted as relatively straightforward adaptive flower and fruiting patterns in relationship to pollination, dispersal and establishment [64]. In contrast to such simple logic is one species, Croton lanjouwensis, which flowered and fruited in the rainy season despite being pollinated by bees and dispersed by wind (Table 1). Furthermore, species that wait to flower until the beginning of the rainy season, as did some of our pioneers, may reduce the risk of hydric stress but increase the risk of reduced pollination success [65].

Fig. 3.

Percent of individuals flowering (floral buds in gray, flowers in black) for the 13 pioneer species monitored. Species' codes conform to Table 1. Species are ranked from top to bottom by increasing degree of seasonality in flowering. Vertical dashed lines indicate January 1 of each year.

10.1177_194008290800100303-fig3.tif

Fig. 4.

Percent of individuals fruiting (immature fruits in gray, ripe fruits in black) for the 13 pioneer species monitored. Species' codes conform to Table 1. Species are ranked from top to bottom as in Figure 3. Vertical dashed lines indicate January 1 of each year.

10.1177_194008290800100303-fig4.tif

Additionally, pioneers are intolerant of shade, so germination for many of the species in this study arises from the seed bank [66]. Therefore, fruiting in the wet season may convey little advantage from the standpoint of having water for germination because the latter is delayed by dormancy. Germinating in the rainy season may provide some other advantage, perhaps increased dispersal or improved success in the seed bank such that the potential for germination is maximized when environmental conditions are favorable [6768]. Other studies confirm that regeneration of pioneer species is mainly from dormant seeds in the soil [678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970]. Moreover, the requirements for germination of dormant seeds [7172] and the establishment of seedlings [7374] vary among species, but may be triggered more by light quality and quantity than by rainfall, especially where dry seasons are moderate [7576].

Other phenological studies in the Neotropics have similarly demonstrated a period of flowering concentrated in the dry season [8, 7778] or during the transition from the dry to the wet season [54, 7980]. But outside the Neotropics, episodic reproduction occurs in most pioneer species in Diptercarpaceae forests where nearly all trees, pioneers as well as mature forest species, exhibit synchronized, supra-annual fruiting [6].

Two community trends characterized the relationship between fruiting and flowering among the 13 pioneers of the Central Amazon. First, the degree of continuity in flowering was matched closely by the degree of continuity in fruiting: continuous flowering species tended to exhibit continuous fruiting, seasonal flowering was associated with seasonal fruiting, and supra-annual flowering with supra-annual fruiting. Fruiting in a few species appeared a bit less continuous than flowering, for example, Bellucia imperialis, Vismia cayennensis, and Guatteria, but for the most part, fruiting continuity was parallel to flowering continuity. Second, the season of fruiting tended to occur shortly after the season of flowering with some overlap. This pattern was evident for individual species (Fig.3 and Fig. 4) and for the pioneer community as a whole (Fig. 2). While this pattern is intuitive from a developmental standpoint, the time from mean flowering date to mean fruiting date varied inexplicably from 1−6 months among species. A quick review of Table 2 reveals that with the exception of Isertia, the seven least seasonal species, Bellucia grossularioides through Cecropia sciadophylla, exhibited flowering to fruiting mean dates of 1 or 2 months, whereas the five most seasonal species posted 3 or 4 months between mean flowering and mean fruiting (Fig. 5). Perhaps greater seasonality in reproduction puts added stress on plant resources resulting in a longer delay from mean flowering to mean fruiting.

In general, pioneers in tropical wet forest have been assumed to reproduce continuously throughout their lives [81]. In our study, continuous flowering and fruiting characterized just less than half of the 13 species, and reproductive activity varied widely from continuous to supra-annual. Classifying many of the species as continuous or annual seasonal was somewhat arbitrary because the 12 species that flowered and fruited every year seemed to represent a continuum from continuous reproduction to highly seasonal, annual reproduction. Excluding our one supra-annual species, we have divided our species into continuous or annual seasonal, based solely on a statistical test. However, the “r” value of the mean vector for flowering or for fruiting clearly showed continuous variation across the twelve species, thereby suggesting that our reproductive classes are not discrete (Table 2).

In this context, each species' phenology represented a unique utilization of time for flowering and fruiting, sometimes varying from year to year, but mostly exhibiting a relatively unique species-specific pattern that repeated consistently across years for the four years of this study (Fig. 3, Fig. 4). Thus, their floral and fruit resources were available year round to support and maintain their pollinators and dispersal agents in areas of secondary vegetation regardless of seasonality in precipitation. Such phenological continuity may be adaptive for pioneer tree species that rely on birds, bats, and monkeys for effective dispersal [82].

Circular statistics have been employed in several recent tropical phenological studies [6, 83]. However, vector lengths in circular coordinates confound the incidence of flowering with the regularity of flowering [7]. Consequently, studies that have used such statistics also graphically depict their phenologies in X-Y coordinates, as we have done here.

Even without statistics, it is clear graphically that all 13 pioneer species reproduced regularly (sensu Newstrom et al. [51]), 12 of them annually and one biennially. This is in sharp contrast to the 48 species in the same floristic region of French Guiana where only 26 reproduced annually, 11 irregularly and 11 with a mast fruiting pattern [84]. However, there was no overlap in species studied with our study, because Norden et al. [84] specifically excluded small-seeded species. In this comparison, our pioneers, relative to larger seeded, mature forest trees, seem to fit the original hypotheses of Swaine and Whitmore [2] and Whitmore [81].

There are two disparities in our results and other studies of the same species. G. glabra showed continuous flowering and fruiting in the secondary growth areas of our study, but as a canopy tree in the mature forest, it flowered from April to August and fruited from June to October [9]. This latter pattern was also observed for eight adults in a nearby mature forest fragment during our study (Bentos, unpublished data). The restricted, seasonal reproduction, observed in mature forest, implies different phenologies for G. glabra trees of different ages or perhaps different light regimes. Trees in mature forest, as components of the canopy, receive direct light only a few hours at midday, whereas the secondary growth trees monitored in our study were in open areas with crowns exposed to full sunlight for most of the day [64, 85]. Another species, C. lanjouwensis, showed different phenologies in mature forest versus secondary growth. In the latter, it reproduced every other year, but larger trees in mature forest exhibited annual reproduction in the Ducke Reserve about 80 km from our BDFFP study sites [8].

Although the majority of the species in our study showed a peak of flowering in the transition from the dry to the wet season and of fruiting in the wet season, it is impossible, without experimentation, to determine the path of factors cueing reproductive events. In this context, a number of studies have shown that rainfall patterns are associated with seasonal cycles of growth, leafing, and flowering for a number of tropical species [35363738, 8687]. Other studies have shown a correlation between changes in temperature and phenological events in tropical plants [24, 26, 53, 88899091]. However, when phenology is correlated with temperature and rainfall, there may be other causative factors that co-vary with these weather variables that provide the direct cue for phenological events. Changes in photoperiod, even in the tropics, have been shown to cue flowering in some species [24, 26, 28, 29, 91]. Also, some species appear to have endogenous rhythms of growth and reproduction; for example, C. sciadophylla shows a high periodicity in flowering and branching, with inflorescences at every 25 nodes, and stages of branches spaced by a multiple of 25 nodes [92].

Phyllogeny may also play a role in determining reproductive phenology. Our study included three pairs of congeners: Bellucia imperialis and B. grossularioides, Vismia cayennensis and V. japurensis, and Cecropia sciadophylla and C. purpurascens. These congeners are near each other in Table 2, indicating that they tend to share a common degree of flowering seasonality (“r” values). However, these congeners show different mean flowering dates, perhaps as a result of sharing pollinators. Related species usually have similar floral morphologies and consequently may share the same pollinators [31, 93]; through asynchrony in flowering, congeners can reduce competition for shared pollinators as well as reduce interspecific pollinations. Staggered flowering in some guilds has been attributed to competition for pollinators [31, 9495] although not without controversy [96].

Phyllogeny may also determine to some degree the age and size of first reproduction. A quick perusal of minimum diameter for flowering (Table 1) shows that congeners start reproduction at similar diameters, more similar than unrelated taxa. Pioneers in tropical wet forests have been hypothesized to begin reproduction at an early age [2, 81]. Our data on minimum size (not age) seem to confirm this pattern for the Amazon's most common colonizing genera, Cecropia and Vismia, as they were reproductive by 5 cm DBH. Given that species in these genera generally grow quickly, it is safe to assume that the onset of reproduction occurs within several years after colonization [19]. However, eight of the other nine pioneers were not reproductive at 5 cm DBH, exhibiting a minimum DBH of 7.8−15.7 cm for flowering. Such divergences among colonizing species have been reported in other tropical forests such as the 11 species of Macaranga studied by Davies and Ashton [6].

Fig. 5.

Reproductive structures for two continuous flowering species, (a) Bellucia grossularioides and (b) Guatteria olivacea, and two seasonally flowering species, (c) Cecropia sciadophylla and (d) Laetia procera.

10.1177_194008290800100303-fig5.tif

Implications for conservation

The Amazon Basin is the most extensive tropical rainforest on the globe. It presents both the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity for biological conservation. Despite the proposal of a variety of models of development in the last century, deforestation in the Amazon is unfolding along predictable patterns that have characterized anthropogenic colonization and forest conversion in the Neotropics [97]. How much of the original forest will be conserved is unknown, but what is conserved will in the 21st century become fragments of mature forest in a matrix of anthropogenic activities and secondary vegetation, both dominated by pioneer tree species.

In this landscape, pioneer tree species will play three quintessential functions. First, as the critical first elements in the colonization of clearcuts and abandoned agriculture, they determine, together with landscape history, the rates of change and trajectories of secondary successions [19, 98]. Second, during succession, pioneer trees play critical community and ecosystem functions—providing resources for pollinators and seed dispersers, building soil structure, recycling nutrients, and accumulating carbon stocks [99100]. Third, the future of fragments of mature forest appears to be increasingly dependent on the quality of the matrix or surrounding secondary vegetation [101102103].

In this context, pioneer trees and their life-history traits, especially reproductive characteristics, become tools in the hands of land managers and conservationists. For example, it is now clearly established that the ability of Vismia species to spread vegetatively following fire in Amazon pastures changes the course of woody plant succession after ranches are abandoned [19, 20, 66]. Here, for the BDFFP reserves in the Central Amazon, we have documented the reproductive phenology of the 13 most abundant pioneer trees. Relative to tree species in mature forests of the Amazon [84], our group of pioneers tends to conform to the generalization [2, 81] that pioneers reproduce regularly throughout the year every year. However, among our pioneer species, there is considerable variability in reproductive phenology, with less than half actually showing this regular, continuous, annual reproduction presumed to characterize pioneers. Therefore, land managers and conservationists must choose carefully when developing management plans to re-forest disturbed areas with pioneer species. Those species with continuous reproduction, starting at small diameters, may produce the most rapid cover. Those dispersed by bats and birds are likely to be spread more widely than those dispersed by primates or terrestrial mammals. Finally, a mix of bird- and bat-dispersed species is likely to facilitate recruitment of mature forest species also dispersed by birds and bats and will provide a highly diverse seed rain into secondary forest.

Acknowledgments

We thank our field assistants, Alex, Osmaildo, Adailton and Lucas. This study was supported by the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP) which is administered jointly by the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA) and the Smithsonian Institution. Grants from the National Science Foundations of Brazil (CNPq PPG7 no. 48/2005) and the US (NSF DEB 0639114) provided partial support. One of us (TVB) was supported by a graduate student fellowship from CAPES (Brazil's Ministry of Education). This is Publication 517 in the technical series of the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project.

References

1.

Bawa, K. S. and Krugman, S. L. 1993. Reproductive biology and genetics of tropical trees in relation to conservation and management. InBawa, K. S., and Hadley, M., (Eds.) Reproductive Ecology of Tropical Plants. MAB series 7, pp. 3–13. Parthenon Publishing: Carnforth. Google Scholar

2.

Swaine, M. D., and Whitmore, T. C., 1982. On the definition of ecological species groups in tropical rainforests. Vegetation 75: 81–86. Google Scholar

3.

Opler, P. A., Baker, H. G., , and Frankie, G. W., 1975. Reproductive biology of some Costa Rican Cordia species (Boraginaceae). Biotropica 7: 234–247. Google Scholar

4.

Lambert, F. R., and Marshall, A. G., 1991. Keystone characteristics of bird-dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rainforest. Journal of Ecology 79: 793–809. Google Scholar

5.

Milton, K., 1991. Leaf change and fruit production in six neotropical Moraceae species. Journal of Ecology 79: 1–26. Google Scholar

6.

Davies, S. J., and Ashton, P. S., 1999. Phenology and fecundity in 11 sympatric pioneer species of Macaranga (Euphorbiaceae) in Borneo. American Journal of Botany 86: 1786–1795. Google Scholar

7.

Hamann, A., 2004. Flowering and fruiting phenology of a Philippine submontane rain forest: climatic factors as proximate and ultimate causes. Journal of Ecology 92: 24–31. Google Scholar

8.

Araújo, V. C., 1970. Fenologia de essências florestais amazônicas. I. Boletim do INPA 4: 1–25. Google Scholar

9.

Alencar, J. C., Almeida, R. A., , and Fernandes, N. P., 1979. Fenologia de espécies florestais em floresta tropical úmida de terra firme na Amazônia Central. Acta Amazonica 9: 163–198. Google Scholar

10.

Alencar, J. C., 1988. Estudos silviculturais de uma população natural de Copaifera multijuga Hayne – Leguminosae, na Amazônia Central. IV Interpretação de dados fenológicos em relação a elementos climáticos. Acta Amazonica 18: 198–209. Google Scholar

11.

Alencar, J. C., 1990. Interpretação fenológica de espécies lenhosas de Campina na Reserva Biológica de Campina do INPA ao norte de Manaus. Acta Amazonica 20: 145–183. Google Scholar

12.

Alencar, J. C., 1991. Estudos fenológicos de espécies florestais arbóreas e de palmeiras nativas da Amazônia. Bases Científicas para Estratégias de Preservação e Desenvolvimento: Fatos e Perspectivas 1: 215–220. Google Scholar

13.

Carvalho, J. O. P., 1980. Fenologia de espécies florestais de potencial econômico que ocorrem na Floresta Nacional do Tapajó. EMBRAPA. Boletim de Pesquisa 20: 1–15. Google Scholar

14.

Laurance, W. F., Rankin-de Merona, J. M., Andrade, A., Laurance, S. G., Lovejoy, T. E., , and Vasconcelos, H. L., 2003. Rain-forest fragmentation and the phenology of Amazonian tree communities. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 343–347. Google Scholar

15.

Lima Junior, M. J. V. 1992. Fenologia de Cinco Espécies de Lecythidaceae na Reserva Florestal Ducke, Manaus. MSc Dissertation. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia / Universidade Federal do Amazonas. Google Scholar

16.

Mori, S. A., and Prance, G. T., 1987. Species diversity, phenology, plant-animal interactions, and their correlation with climate, as illustrated by the Brazil nut family (Lecythidaceae). InDickinson, R. E., (Ed.) The Geophysiology of Amazonia, pp. 69–89. Wiley, New York. Google Scholar

17.

Magalhães, L. M. S., and Alencar, J. C., 1979. Fenologia do pau-rosa (Aniba duckei Kostermans), Lauraceae, em floresta primária da Amazônia Central. Acta Amazonica 9: 227–232. Google Scholar

18.

Sombroek, W., 2000. Amazon landforms and soils in relation to biological diversity. Acta Amazonica 30: 81–100. Google Scholar

19.

Mesquita, R. C. G., Ickes, K., Ganade, G., , and Williamson, G. B., 2001. Alternative successional pathways in the Amazon Basin. Journal of Ecology 89: 528–537. Google Scholar

20.

Williamson, G. B., Mesquita, R. C. G., Ickes, K., , and Ganade, G., 1998. Estratégias de pioneiras nos Neotrôpicos. InGascon, C., and Moutinho, P., (Eds.) Floresta Amazônica: Dinâmica, Regeneração e Manejo, pp. 131–144. INPA, Manaus, Brazil. Google Scholar

21.

Rivera, G., Elliott, S., Caldas, L. S., Nicolossi, G., Coradin, V. T. R., , and Borchert, R., 2002. Increasing day-length induces spring flushing of tropical dry forest trees in the absence of rain. Tree: Structure and Function. 16: 445–456. Google Scholar

22.

Diaz, M., and Granadillo, E., 2005. The significance of episodic rains for reproductive phenology and productivity of trees in semiarid regions of northwestern Venezuela. Trees: Structure and Function 19: 336–348. Google Scholar

23.

Singh, K. P., and Kushwaha, C. P., 2006. Diversity of flowering and fruiting phenology of trees in a tropical deciduous forest in India. Annals of Botany 97: 265–276. Google Scholar

24.

Lyndon, R. F., 1992. Fruit and Seed Production. Aspects of Development Environmental Physiology and Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google Scholar

25.

Van Schaik, C. P., Terborgh, J. W., , and Wright, S. J., 1993. The phenology of tropical forest: adaptive significance and consequences of consumers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 353–377. Google Scholar

26.

Marques, M.C.M., Roper, J.J., and Salvalaggio, A.P.B., . 2004. Phenological patters among plant life-forms in a subtropical forest in southern Brazil. Plant Ecology. 173:203–213. Google Scholar

27.

Stevenson, P. R., 2004. Phenological patters of woody vegetation at Tinigua Park Colombia: Methodological comparisons with emphasis on fruit production. Caldasia 26: 125–150. Google Scholar

28.

Borchert, R., Renner, S., Calle, Z., Navarrete, D., Gauthier, A. T. L., , and Spicheger, R., 2005. Photoperiodic induction of synchronous flowering near the Equator. Nature 433: 627–629. Google Scholar

29.

Sloan, S. A., Zimmerman, J. K., , and Sabat, A. M., 2007. Phenology of Plumeria alba and its herbivores in a tropical dry forest. Biotropica 39: 195–201. Google Scholar

30.

Janzen, D. H., 1967. Synchronization of sexual reproduction of trees within dry season in Central Amarican. Evolution 21: 620–637. Google Scholar

31.

Gentry, A. H., 1974. Flowering phenology and diversity in tropical Bignoaceae. Biotropica 6: 64–68. Google Scholar

32.

Sigrist, M. R., and Sazima, M., 2004. Pollination and reproductive biology of twelve species of Neotropical malpighiaceae: Stigma morphology and its implications for the breeding system. Annals of Botany 94: 33–41. Google Scholar

33.

Ramirez, N., 2006. Temporal variation of pollination classes in a tropical Venezuelan plain: The importance of habitats and life forms. Canadian Journal of Botany 84: 443–452. Google Scholar

34.

Garwood, N., 1983. Seed germination in a seasonal tropical forest in Panama: A community study. Ecological Monographs 53: 159–181. Google Scholar

35.

Borchert, R., Meyer, S. A., Felger, R. S., , and Porter-Bolland, L., 2004. Environmental control of flowering periodicity in Costa Rican and Mexican tropical dry forest. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 409–425. Google Scholar

36.

McLaren, K. P., and MacDonald, M. A., . 2005. Seasonal patters of flowering and fruiting in a dry tropical forest in Jamaica. Biotropica 37: 584–590. Google Scholar

37.

Sakai, S., Harrison, R. D., Momose, K., Kuraji, K., Nagamasu, H., Yasunari, T., Chong, L., , and Nakashizuka, T., 2006. Irregular droughts trigger mass flowering in aseasonal tropical forests in Asia. American Journal of Botany 93: 1134–1139. Google Scholar

38.

Brearley, F. Q., Proctor, J., Suriantata Nagy, L., Dalrymple, G., , and Voysey, B. C., 2007. Reproductive phenology over a 10-year period in a lowland evergreen rain forest of central Borneo. Journal of Ecology 95: 828–839. Google Scholar

39.

Wright, J. S., , and Cornejo, F. H., 1990. Seasonal drought and the timing of flowering and leaf fall in a Neotropical forest. InBawa, K., and Hadley, M., (Eds.) Reproductive Ecology of Tropical Forest Plants, pp. 49–61. Parthenon, Park Ridger, New Jersey. Google Scholar

40.

Veloso, H. P., 1991. Classificação da Vegetação Brasileira Adaptada a um Sistema Universal. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE)/Departamento de Recursos Naturais e Estudos Ambientais, Rio de Janeiro. Google Scholar

41.

Lovejoy, T. E., and Bierregaard, R. O., Jr. 1990. Central Amazonian forests and the minimum critical size of ecosystems project. InGentry, A., (Ed.) Four Neotropical Rainforests, pp. 60–74. Yale University Press, New Haven. Google Scholar

42.

Laurance, W.F., 2001. The hyper-diverse flora of the Central Amazon. InR. O. Bierregaard, Jr., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E., , and Mesquita, R. C. G., (Eds.) Lessons from Amazonia, pp. 47–53. Yale University Press, New Haven. Google Scholar

43.

Bruna, E. M., 2002. Effects of forest fragmentation on Heliconia acuminate seedling recruitment in central Amazonia. Oecologia 132:235–243. Google Scholar

44.

Koppen, W., 1936. Das geographische System der Klimate. InKöppen, W., and Geiger, R., (Eds.) Handbuch der Klimatologie, pp. C1–C44. Gerbrüder Bornträger, Berlin. Google Scholar

45.

Nee, M., 1995. Flora Preliminar do Projeto Dinâmica Biológica de Fragmentos Florestais (PDBFF). New York Botanic Garden and INPA/Smithsonian Projeto Dinâmica Biológica de Fragmentos Florestais. Manaus, AM. Google Scholar

46.

Ranzani, G., 1980. Identificação e caracterização de alguns solos da Estação Experimental de Silvicultura Tropical do INPA. Acta Amazonica 10: 7–41. Google Scholar

47.

Gascon, C., and Bierregaard, R. O., Jr. 2001. The Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragmentation Project: the study site, experimental design, and research activity. InR. O. Bierregaard, Jr., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E., , and Mesquita, R. C. G., (Eds.) Lessons from Amazonia, pp. 31–42. Yale University Press, New Haven. Google Scholar

48.

Joly, A. B., 1993. Botânica: Introdução à Taxonomia Vegetal. Companhia Editora Nacional, São Paulo, SP. Google Scholar

49.

Oliveira, A. A., and Mori, S., 1999. A central Amazonian terra firme forest. I. High tree species richness on poor soils. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1219–44. Google Scholar

50.

Fournier, L. A., 1974. Un metodo cuantitativo para la medición de características fenológicas en árboles. Turrialba 24: 422–423. Google Scholar

51.

Newstrom, L. E., Frankie, G. W., , and Baker, H. G., 1994. A new classification for plant phenology based on flowering patterns in lowland tropical rain forest trees at La Selva, Costa Rica. Biotropica 26: 141–159. Google Scholar

52.

Zar, J. H., 1998. Biostatistical analysis. Fourth edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Google Scholar

53.

Morellato, L. P. C., Talora, D. C., Takahasi, A., Bencke, C. C., Romera, E. C., , and Zipparro, V. B., 2000. Phenology of Atlantic rain forest trees: A comparative study. Biotropica 32: 811–823. Google Scholar

54.

Morellato, L. P. C, Rodrigues, R. R., Leitão Filho, H. F., , and Joly, C. A., 1989. Estudo comparativo da fenologia de espécies arbóreas de floresta de altitude e floresta mesófila semi-decídua na Serra do Japí, Jundiaí, São Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 12: 85–98. Google Scholar

55.

Oriana 2.0. Kovach Computing Services, Anglesey, Wales. Google Scholar

56.

Bernard, E., 1997. Estratificação Vertical de Comunidades de Morcegos em Clareiras Abertas em Matas de Terra-Firme da Amazônia Central. MS Thesis, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia. Manaus, Brazil. Google Scholar

57.

Ewel, J. C., Berish, B., Brown, B., Prince, N., , and Raich, R., 1981. Slash and burn impacts on a Costa Rican wet forest site. Ecology 62: 816–829. Google Scholar

58.

Charles-Dominique, P., 1986. Inter-relations between frugivorous vertebrates and pioneer plants: Cecropia, birds and bats in French Guyana. InEstrada, A., and Fleming, T. H., (Eds.) Frugivores and Seed Dispersal, pp.119–135. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht. Google Scholar

59.

Guillaumet, J.-L., 1984. Observações sobre a frutificação e disseminação das sementes de algumas espécies do genero Cecropia (Moraceae). Anais do Congresso Nacional de Botânica, IBAMA, Brasilia. 35: 143–163. Google Scholar

60.

Van Roosmalen, M. G. M., . 1985. Fruits of the Guianan Flora. Institute of Systematic Botany, Utrecht University, Netherlands. Google Scholar

61.

Uhl, C., Clark, K., Clark, H., , and Murphy, P., 1981. Early plant succession after cutting and burning in the upper Rio Negro region of the Amazon Basin. Journal of Ecology 69: 631–649. Google Scholar

62.

Stevenson, P. R., Quinones, M. J., , and Castellanos, M. C., 2000. Guia de Frutos de los Bosques del Rio Duda La Macarena, Colombia. Netherlands Committee for ICUN. Google Scholar

63.

Williamson, G. B., Laurance, W. F., Oliveira, A. A., Delamônica, P., Gascon, C., Lovejoy, T. E., , and Pohl, L., 2000. Amazonian wet forest resistance to the 1997−98 El Niño drought. Conservation Biology 14: 1538–1542. Google Scholar

64.

Janzen, D. H., 1976. Seeding patterns of tropical trees. InTomlinson, P. B., and Zimmermann, M. H., (Eds.) Tropical Trees as Living Systems, pp. 88–128. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar

65.

Reich, P., and Borchert, R., 1982. Phenology and ecophysiology of tropical tree, Tabebuia neochrysantha (Bignoniaceae). Ecology 63: 249–299. Google Scholar

66.

Mônaco, L. M., Mesquita, R. C. G., , and Williamson, G. B., 2003. O banco de sementes de uma floresta secundária Amazônica dominado por Vismia. Acta Amazonica 33: 41–52. Google Scholar

67.

Uhl, C., and Clark, K., 1983. Seed ecology of selected Amazon Basin successional species. Botanical Gazette. 144: 419–425. Google Scholar

68.

Rodrigues, F. C. M., Costa, L. G. S., , and Reis, A., 1990. Estratégias de estabelecimento de espécies arbóreas e o manejo de florestas tropicais. In: VI Congresso Florestal Brasileiro, pp. 676–684. Sociedade Brasileira de Silvicultura. Campos do Jordão, São Paulo. Google Scholar

69.

Guevara, S., and Gómez-Pompa, A., 1972. Seeds form surface soils in a tropical region of Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 53: 312–335. Google Scholar

70.

Lawton, R. O., and Putz, F. E., 1988. Natural disturbance and gap-phase regeneration in a wind-exposed tropical cloud forest. Ecology 69: 764–777. Google Scholar

71.

Vázquez-Yanes, C., 1974. Studies on the germination of seeds of Ochroma lagopus Swartz. Turrialba 24: 176–179. Google Scholar

72.

Vázquez-Yanes, C., and Smith, H., 1982. Phytochrome control of seed germination in the tropical rain forest pioneer trees Cecropia obtusifolia and Piper auritum, and its ecological significance. New Phytologist 92: 477–485. Google Scholar

73.

Riera, B., 1985. Importance des buttes de déracinement dans la régénération forestière en Guyane française. Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) 40: 321–330. Google Scholar

74.

Nunez-Farfan, J., and Dirzo, R., 1988. Within gap spatial heterogeneity and seedling performance in a Mexican tropical forest. Oikos 51: 274–284. Google Scholar

75.

Brokaw, N. V. L., 1987. Gap-phase regeneration of three pioneer tree species in a tropical forest. Journal of Ecology 75: 9–19. Google Scholar

76.

Van der Meer, P. J., Sterck, F. J., , and Bongers, F., 1998. Tree seedling performance in canopy gaps in a tropical rain forest at Nourages, French Guiana. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 119–137. Google Scholar

77.

Frankie, G., Baker, H., , and Opler, P., 1974. Comparative phenological studies of trees in tropical wet and dry forests in lowland of Costa Rica. Ecology 62: 881–919. Google Scholar

78.

Fournier, L. A., 1976. El dendrofenograma, una representación gráfica del comportamiento fenológico de los árboles. Turrialba 26: 96–97. Google Scholar

79.

Morellato, L. P. C., and Leitão Filho, H. F., 1990. Estratégias fenológicas de espécies arbóreas em floresta mesófila na Serra do Japi, Jundiaí, SP. Revista Brasileira de Biologia 50: 63–173. Google Scholar

80.

Morellato, L. P.C., 1995. As estações do ano na floresta. InMorellato, L. P. C., and Leitão-Filho, H. F., (Eds.) Ecologia e Preservação de uma Floresta Tropical Urbana, pp. 37–41, (e). Editora da Unicamp, Campinas, Brasil. Google Scholar

81.

Whitmore, T. C., 1988. The influence of tree opulation dynamics on forest species composition. InDavy, A. J., Hutchings, M. J., , and Watkinson, A. R., (Eds.) Plant Population Ecology, pp. 277–292. Blackwell Scientific Publicatins, Oxford. Google Scholar

82.

Howe, H. F., and Smallwood, J., 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 201–228. Google Scholar

83.

Wright, S. J., and Calderon, O., 1995. Phylogenetic patterns among tropical flowering phenologies. Journal of Ecology 83: 937–948. Google Scholar

84.

Norden, N., Chave, J., Belbnoit, P., Caubère, A., Châtelet, P., Forget, P.M., , and Thébaud, C., 2007. Mast fruiting is a frequent strategy in woody species of Eastern South America. PLos One (10):e1079. Google Scholar

85.

Wright, S. J., and Van Schaik, C. P., 1994. Light and the phenology of tropical trees. American Naturalist 143: 192–199. Google Scholar

86.

Augspurger, C. K., 1981. Reproductive synchrony of a tropical shrub: Experimental studies on effects of pollinators and seed predators on Hybanthus prunifolius. Ecology 62: 775–788. Google Scholar

87.

Borchert, R., 1998. Responses of tropical trees to rainfall seasonality and its long-term changes. Climatic Change 39: 381–393. Google Scholar

88.

Ashton, P. S., Givnish, T. J., , and Appanah, S., 1988. Staggered flowering in the Dipterocarpaceae: new insights into floral induction and the evolution of mast fruiting in the aseasonal tropics. American Naturalist 132: 44–66. Google Scholar

89.

Corlett, R. T., and Lafrankie, J. V., . 1998. Potential impacts of climate change on tropical Asian forests through an influence on phenology. Climatic Change 39: 439–453. Google Scholar

90.

Tutin, C. E. G., and Fernandez, M., . 1993. Relationships between minimum temperature and fruit production in some tropical forst trees in Gabon. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 241–248. Google Scholar

91.

Stevenson, P. R., 2004. Fruit choice by wooly monkeys in Tinigua National Park, Colombia. International Journal of Primatology 25: 367–381 Google Scholar

92.

Zalamea, P., Stevenson, P. R., Madriñán, S., Aubert, P., , and Heuret, P., 2008. Growth pattern and age determination for Cecropia sciadophylla (Urticaceae). American Journal of Botany 95: 263–271. Google Scholar

93.

Temeles, E. J., and Kress, W. J., 2003. Adaptation in plant-hummingbird association. Science 300: 630–632. Google Scholar

94.

Stiles, G., 1975. Ecology, phenology, and hummingbird pollination of some Costa Rican Heliconia species. Ecology 56: 285–301. Google Scholar

95.

Williams, C. F., Ruvinsky, J., Scott, P. E., , and Hews, D. K., 2001. Pollination, breeding system, and genetic structure in two sympatric Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) species. American Journal of Botany 88: 1623–1633. Google Scholar

96.

Levin, D. A., and Anderson, W. W., 1970. Competition for pollinators between simultaneously flowering species. American Naturalist 104: 455–467. Google Scholar

97.

Skole, D., and Tucker, C., 1993. Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260: 1905–1910. Google Scholar

98.

Chazdon, R. L., Letcher, S. G., Breugel, M. V., Martinez-Ramos, M., Bongers, F., , and Finegan, B., 2007. Rates of change in tree communities of secondary Neotropical forests following major disturbances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London), B 362: 273–289. Google Scholar

99.

Nepstad, D. C., Uhl, C., , and Serrao, E., 1990. Surmounting barriers to forest regeneration in abandoned, highly degraded pastures: a case study from Paragominas, Para, Brazil. InAnderson, A. B., (Ed.) Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps toward Sustainable Use of the Amazon Rain Forest, pp. 215–229. Columbia University Press, New York. Google Scholar

100.

Maury-Lechon, G., 1991. Comparative dynamics of tropical rain forest regeneration in French Guyana. In: Jeffers, J. N. R., (Ed.) Rainforest Regeneration and Management, pp. 285–292. MAB Series, v. 6. UNESCO, Paris. Google Scholar

101.

Gascon, C., Williamson, G. B., , and Da Fonseca, G. A.B., 2000. Receding forest edges and vanishing reserves. Science 288: 1356–1358. Google Scholar

102.

Mesquita, R. C. G., Delamonica, P., and Laurance, W. F., 1999. Effect of surrounding vegetation on edge-related tree mortality in Amazon forest fragments. Biological Conservation 91: 129–134. Google Scholar

103.

Stouffer, P. C., Bierregaard, R. O., Jr., Strong, C., and Lovejoy, T.E., 2006. Long-term landscape change and bird abundance in Amazonian rainforest fragments. Conservation Biology 20: 1212–1223. Google Scholar
© 2008 Bentos, T. V., Mesquita, R., C. G. and Williamson, G. B. This is an open access paper. We use the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ - The license permits any user to download, print out, extract, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and source of the work. The license ensures that the published article will be as widely available as possible and that your article can be included in any scientific archive. Open Access authors retain the copyrights of their papers. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers.
Tony V. Bentos, Rita C. G. Mesquita, and G. Bruce Williamson "Reproductive Phenology of Central Amazon Pioneer Trees," Tropical Conservation Science 1(3), 186-203, (1 January 2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/194008290800100303
Received: 26 May 2008; Accepted: 13 July 2008; Published: 1 January 2020
KEYWORDS
Flowering
fruiting
phenology
regeneration
Seasonality
secondary growth
Succession
Back to Top