کمی‌سازی فشار آشیان انتخابی گونه‌های چوبی در جنگل‌های میان‌بند شمال ایران (منطقه مورد مطالعه: بخش گرازبن جنگل خیرود)

محورهای موضوعی : منابع طبیعی

سجاد بابایی ¹ (کارشناسی ارشد جنگلداری و اقتصاد جنگل، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.)
محمود بیات ² (استادیار پژوهش، مؤسسه تحقیقات جنگلها و مراتع کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات))
منوچهر نمیرانیان ³ (استاد، گروه جنگلداری و اقتصاد جنگل دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران،کرج،ایران.)
سحر حیدری مستعلی ⁴ (دانشجوی دکتری محیط زیست، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران)
فاطمه احمدلو ⁵ (استادیار پژوهش، مؤسسه تحقیقات جنگلها و مراتع کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1398/05/22 تاریخ پذیرش : 1398/09/06 تاریخ انتشار : 1399/08/01

کلید واژه: فشار انتخابی, سطح تعادل آشیان انتخابی, آشیان اکولوژیک, پراکنش گونه‌ها,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: شناخت آشیان اکولوژیکی گونه های مختلف در بسیار از مسائل اکولوژیکی ضروری است. آشیان اکولوژیک گونه ها یکی از فاکتورهای مهم در تشخیص الگوی پراکنش درختان بوده و برای کل گونه ها، با بررسی توزیع پراکنش گونه ها قابل‌تشخیص است. مدل های آشیان اکولوژیک اغلب به فهم بیشتر اکوسیستم کمک می نماید. این مدل ها در پیش بینی برآورد تغییرات پایداری اکوسیستم و نسبت پایداری و اکوسیستم ها کاربردی است. روش بررسی: به منظور تعیین فشار انتخابی گونه های مختلف از شاخص های سطح تعادل آشیان انتخابی، سطح غالب آشیان انتخابی و سطح بحران آشیان انتخابی استفاده و 5/41 هکتار از جنگل آموزشی پژوهشی خیرود مورد آماربرداری کامل (صد درصد) قرار گرفت. سپس، مشخص های نظیر قطر برابر سینه درختان اندازه گیری و با استفاده از شاخص های آشیان انتخابی به اندازه گیری فشار انتخابی و سطوح آشیان گونه های راش، بلوط، ممرز، توسکا پرداخته شد. یافته ها: مقدار بدست آمده از فشار انتخابی برای گونه های راش 419/66 ، بلوط 313/28، ممرز 3/261، توسکا 962/36 و نمدار 39/9 به ترتیب محاسبه شد. نتایج نهایی بدست آمده نشان داد گونه ممرز در سطح آشیان غالب، گونه راش و توسکا در سطح آشیان تعادل، گونه بلوط در حد واسط آشیان تعادل و مغلوب و نمدار در سطح آشیان مغلوب بوده است. بحث و نتیجه گیری: گونه ممرز در سطح غالب فشار انتخابی، گونه نمدار در ردیف گونه های با سطح تعادل بحران و گونه بلوط در سطح آشیان بحران نزدیک به سطح تعادل قرار گرفت. نتایج بدست آمده از این پژوهش نشان داد که کمی سازی فشار انتخابی یک عامل مهم برای تعیین جایگاه کنونی گونه های در حال انقراض می باشد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: Understanding the ecological niche of the different species is essential in many ecological issues.  Ecological niches of species are one of the important factors in the tree species distribution pattern and for all species, it can be detected by examining distribution of species distribution. Ecological nest models often help to understand more ecosystems. These models are applicable in predicting ecosystem stability and sustainability ratios and ecosystems. Method: In order to determine the selective pressure of different species, the indicators of the equilibrium level of selected nests, the dominant level of selected nests and the crisis level of selected nests were used and 41.5 hectares of Khirud research and educational forest were fully surveyed (100%). Then, characteristics such as diameter equal to the chest of the trees were measured and using selective nesting indices, the selected pressure and nesting levels of beech, oak, hornbeam and alder species were measured. Findings: The values of the selective pressure were measured for the species on the Fagus orientalis 66.419, Quercus persica 3. 313, Carpinus orientalis 261. 28, Alnus 36. 962 and tilia begonifolia 9. 39 respectively. The final results showed that Carpinus orientalis wasat a Dominates niche level, the Fagus orientalis and Alnus was in the balance niche level and the Quercus persica was in intermediate between balance and critical level and also tilia begonifolia was in the critical niche levels. Discussion and Conclusion: The Carpinus species were at the dominant level of selective pressure, the Tilla species were at the equilibrium level and the Quercus species were at the equilibrium level of the crisis nest. The results of this study showed that selective strain quantification is an important factor in determining the current status of endangered species.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Coomes, D.A., and Allen, R.B. 2007. Effects of size, competition and altitude on tree growth. Journal of Ecology, 95(5): 1084-1097.


2. Van de Peer, T., Verheyen, K., Kint, V., Van Cleemput, E., and Muys, B. 2017. Plasticity of tree architecture through interspecific and intraspecific competition in a young experimental plantation. Forest Ecology and Management, 385: 1-9.


3. Matthews, T.J., Borregaard, M.K., Ugland, K.I., Borges, P.A.V., Rigal, F., Cardoso P., and Whittaker, R.J. 2014. The gambin model provides a superior fit to species abundance distributions with a single free parameter: evidence, implementation and interpretation. Ecography, 37: 1002–1011.


4.  Kakavand,M., Marvi-Mohadjer, M., Sagheb-Talebi, Kh., and Sefidi, K. 2015. StrStructure and composition of oriental beech stands in the middle stage of ecological succession in the hyrcanain region. Forest and wood products, 1: 31-45. (In Persian)


5. Tokeshi, M., and Schmid, P.E. 2002. Niche division and abundance: an evolutionary perspective. Population Ecology, 44:189–200.


6. Macarthur, R. A. 1972. Sensitivity of distributional prediction algorithms to geographic data completeness. Ecological Modelling, 117:159–164.


7. Peterson, A. T., and Nakazawa, Y. 2008. Environmental data sets matter in ecological niche modeling: an example with Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis richteri. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17: 135–144.


8. Araújo, M., B. and Guisan, A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modeling. Journal of Biogeography, 33: 1677–1688.


9. Jiménez-Valverde, A., J. M. Lobo, and Hortal, J. 2008. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modeling. Diversity and Distributions, 14: 885–890.


10. Sobero´n, J., and Peterson, A. T. 2005. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodiversity Informatics, 2: 1–10.


11. Hampe, A. 2004. Bioclimatic models: what they detect and what they hide. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11: 469– 471.


12. Menke, S. B., D. A. Holway, R. N. Fisher, and Jetz, W. 2009. Characterizing and predicting species distributions across environments and scales: Argentine ant occurrences in the eye of the beholder. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 18: 50–63.


13.  Wright, S.J. 2002. Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanism of species coexistence. Oecologia, 130: 1-14.


14. Costa, G. C., C. Nogueira, R. B. Machado, and Colli, G. R. 2010. Sampling bias and the use of ecological niche modeling in conservation planning: a field evaluation in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19: 883–899.


15.  Peterson, A. T. 2001. Predicting species’ geographic distributions based on ecological niche modeling. Condor, 103: 599–605.


16. Mendoza-González, G., M. L. Martínez, O. R. Rojas-Soto, G. Vázquez, and Gallego-Fernández, J. B. 2013. Ecological niche modeling of coastal dune plants and future potential distribution in response to climate change and sea level rise. Global Change Biol, 19: 2524–2535.


17. Raxworthy, C. J., C. M. Ingram, N. Rabibisoa, and Pearson, R. G. 2007. Applications of ecological niche modeling for species delimitation: a review and empirical evaluation using day geckos (Phelsuma) from Madagascar. Syst. Biol, 56: 907–923.


18. Warren, D. L. 2012. In defense of ‘niche modeling. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27: 497–500


19. Zink, R. M. 2015. Genetics, morphology, and ecological niche modeling do not support the subspecies status of the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Condor, 117: 76–86


20. Solano, E., and Feria, T. P. 2007. Ecological niche modeling and geographic distribution of the genus Polianthes 1: (Agavaceae) in Mexico: using niche modeling to improve assessments of risk status. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16: 1885–1900.


21. Basiri, R., and Mahmoodi, A. 2013. Investigation relationship between some of environmental factors and ecological groups in Golzar Izeh, Iran. Journal of plant research (Iranian journal of biology) 2014, 26 (4): 387 - 396.


22. Zare Chahouki, M. A. 2011. Investigation on relationship between plant diversity and environmental factors in Eshtehard rangelands. Arid Biom Scientific and Research Journal, 1 (2):1-14. (In Persian).


23.  Falah Bagheri, F. 2007. Modeling the habitat suitability of sheep in Kolah Gazi Natinal Park with ENFA method. Thesis of Azad University. Science and Research Branch, 100p. (In Persian)


24. Kazempour Larsary, M., Taheri, K., Akhavan, R., Pourbabaei, H., and Amanzadeh, B. 2017. Spatial patterns, competition and spatial association of trees from different development stages in mixed beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) stands, 70 (2): 303-314. (In Persian)


25. Marvie Mohadjer, M.R. 2005. Silviculture, Tehran, University of Tehran Press. 387. (In Persian)


26. Manabe, T., Nishimura, N., Miura, M., Yamamoto, S. 2000. Population structure and spatial patterns for trees in temperate old-growth evergreen broad-leaved forests in Japan. Plant Ecology, 151: 181-197.


27. Habashi, H., Hosseini, S.M., Mohammadi, J., Rahmani, R (2007) “Stand structure and spatial patterns of trees in mixed Hyrcanian beech forests of Iran. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 15 (1): 55-64. (In Persian)


28. Bourque, CPA., and Bayat, M. 2015. Landscape variation in tree species richness in northern Iran forests. PLoS One. 10(4), e0121172. - doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121172


29. Omidipoor, R., and Tahmasbi, P. 2017. Evaluating species abundance distribution based on Niche Apportionment Models in Different Bioclimatic Regions, Journal of Rangeland, 4(10): 483-495. (In Persian)


30. Kooch, Y., and Najafi, A. 2009. Ecological Potential Assessment of Forest Groups Using Fuzzy Set Theory and Regression Analysis of Soil Characteristics (Case Study: Khanikan Forest, Chalus, Iran). Journal of Wood & Forest Science and Technology, 18 (1): 43-60. (In Persian)


31. Hassanzad Navroodi, I., and Hassannazhad, S. 2015. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative characteristics in managed and unmanaged natural forest stands at district Shenrood (Siahkal). Journal of Plant Research (Iranian Journal of Biology), 28:1-14. (In Persian)


32. Kang, D., Deng, J., Qin, X., Hao, F., Guo, S., Han, X. and Yang, G. 2017. Effect of competition on spatial patterns of oak forests on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Journal of Arid Land, 9(1), 122-131.


33. Bourque, C. P. A., Bayat, M., & Zhang, C. 2019. An assessment of height–diameter growth variation in an unmanaged Fagus orientalis-dominated forest. European Journal of Forest Research, 1-15.

29. Bayat, M., Bettinger, P., Heidari, S., Henareh Khalyani, A., Jourgholami, M., Hamidi, S.K. 2020. Estimation of tree heights in an uneven-aged, mixed forest in northern Iran using artificial intelligence and empirical models. Forests, 11(3), Article 324.


30. Rostami, A., and Rafiei, F. 2017. The evaluation of spatial distribution pattern of Indicator species forests of Ghalarang protected area in Ilam province. Botanic research, 4: 990-997. (In Persian)

32. Bayat, M., Noi, P.T., Zare, R., Bui, D.T. 2019. A semi-empirical approach based on genetic programming for the study of biophysical controls on diameter-growth of Fagus orientalis in northern Iran. Remote Sensing, 11(14), Article 1680.


33. Nouri, Z., M. Zobeiri؛ J. Feghhi, and Marvie Mohadjer, M. 2012. An Investigation on the Forest Structure and Trees Spatial Pattern in Fagusorientalis Stands of Hyrcanian Forests of Iran (Case Study: Gorazbon District of Kheyrud Forest). Journal of Natural Environment, 66(1), 113-125. (In Persian)

36. Abrari Vajari, K. 2016. Investigating the interaction between trees abundance and some environmental factors in beech forests (case study: beech forest of Savadkoh-Mazandaran). Botanic research, 4:694-701. (In Persian)