Abstract
We studied three cerrado physiognomies (campo cerrado, a savanna woodland; cerrado sensu stricto, a woodland; and cerradão, a tall woodland) in a reserve with 1,225 ha, in Santa Rita do Passa-Quatro (21 degrees 36-38'S and 47 degrees 36-39'W), São Paulo State, South-eastern Brazil, to compare plant communities structure. As descriptors of the vegetation structure, we used richness, density, basal area, cylindrical volume, and diversity. Ten 40 m2 quadrats were placed randomly in each physiognomy, in which we sampled the woody plants with stem diameter equal or larger than 1 cm (woody component), and ten 2.5 m2 quadrats, in which we sampled the woody plants with stem diameter smaller than 1 cm and all the non-woody individuals (herbaceous component). In the woody component, we found significant differences among the physiognomies for richness, density and cylindrical volume. Cylindrical volume increased from campo cerrado to cerradão, but richness and density were higher in cerrado sensu stricto. In the herbaceous component, we detected differences for all variables, which were higher in the savanna physiognomies, campo cerrado and cerrado sensu stricto, than in the forest physiognomy, cerradão. Cylindrical volume was the best variable to distinguish the physiognomies. Floristic similarity followed the campo cerrado-cerrado sensu stricto-cerradão gradient, and beta diversity was higher in the herbaceous component.
Highlights
The cerrado is the second largest Brazilian biome, covering approximately two million km2, especially in the Central Highlands (Ratter et al, 1997)
We found an increase from campo cerrado to cerradão, it was not significant
Diversity decreased from campo cerrado to cerradão, the differences were not significant
Summary
The cerrado is the second largest Brazilian biome, covering approximately two million km, especially in the Central Highlands (Ratter et al, 1997). The cerrado vegetation presents a wide physiognomic variation. The intermediate physiognomies (campo sujo – a shrub savanna, campo cerrado – a savanna woodland, and cerrado sensu stricto – a woodland) are considered ecotones of the two extremes. Since the limits among cerrado physiognomies are not well-defined (Goodland, 1979), all subdivisions of cerrado are more or less arbitrary. There is no agreement on the cerrado physiognomic subdivision. Besides Coutinho’s classification, there are other systems, such as those of Eiten (1979) and Ribeiro & Walter (1998), in which the cerrado subdivision is even more detailed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
