Crown ratio influences allometric scaling in trees

Ecology

Volumn 87, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 2967-2972

  Mäkelä, Annikki ^a   Valentine, Harry T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Allometry; Biomass; Branching network; Fractal dimension; Pipe model; Quarter power scaling

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BOREAL FOREST; CANOPY ARCHITECTURE; NUMERICAL MODEL; TREE;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIRCH; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HISTOLOGY; SCOTS PINE; SPRUCE; TREE;

BETULA; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PICEA; PINUS SYLVESTRIS; TREES;

EID: 33845718060     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2967:CRIASI]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Assmann, E. 1970. The principles of forest yield study. Studies in the organic production, structure, increment and yield of forest stands. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
2. Chambers, J. Q., J. dos Santos, R. J. Ribeiro, and N. Higuchi. 2001. Tree damage, allometric relationships, and aboveground net primary production in central Amazon forest. Forest Ecology and Management 152:73-84.
3. Enquist, B. J. 2002. Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiology 22:1045-1064.
4. Greenhill, A. G. 1881. Determination of the greatest height consistent with stability that a vertical pole or mast can be made, and of the greatest height to which a tree of given proportions can grow. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society IV(II):65-73.
5. Hasenauer, H., and R. A. Monserud. 1996. A crown ratio model for Austrian forests. Forest Ecology and Management 84:49-60.
6. Holdaway, M. R. 1986. Modeling tree crown ratio. Forestry Chronicle 62:451-455.
7. Horn, H. S. 1971. The adaptive geometry of trees. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
8. Hynynen, J. 1995. Modelling tree growth for managed stands. Research Papers 576. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa, Finland.
9. Ilomäki, S., E. Nikinmaa, and A. Mäkelä. 2003. Crown rise due to competition drives biomass allocation in silver birch. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 33:2395-2404.
10. Kantola, A., and A. Mäkelä. 2004. Crown development in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.). Trees 18:408-421.
11. Kozlowski, J., and M. Konarzewski. 2004. Is West, Brown and Enquist's model of allometric scaling mathematically correct and biologically relevant? Functional Ecology 8:283-289.
12. Longetaud, F., F. Mothe, J.-M. Leban, and A. Mäkelä. 2006. Picea abies sapwood width: variations within and between trees. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 21(1):41-53.
13. Mäkelä, A. 2002. Derivation of stem taper from the pipe theory in a carbon balance framework. Tree Physiology 22:891-905.
14. Mäkelä, A., and R. Sievänen. 1992. Height growth in open-grown trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology 159:443-467.
15. Mäkelä, A., and H. T. Valentine. 2006. The quarter-power scaling does not infer size-invariant hydraulic resistance in trees. Journal of Theoretical Biology, in press.
16. Mäkelä, A., and P. Vanninen. 1998. Impacts of size and competition on tree form and distribution of aboveground biomass in Scots pine. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 28:216-227.
17. Mandelbrot, B. B. 1983. The fractal geometry of nature. W. H. Freeman, New York, New York, USA.
18. Mattheck, C. 1998. Design in nature. Learning from trees. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
19. Maynard Smith, J. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
20. McMahon, T. 1973. Size and shape in biology. Science 179:1201-1204.
21. Meinzer, F. C., B. J. Bond, J. M. Warren, and D. R. Woodruff. 2005. Does water transport scale universally with tree size? Functional Ecology 19:558-565.
22. Morgan, J., and M. G. R. Cannell. 1994. Shape of tree stems: a re-examination of the uniform stress hypothesis. Tree Physiology 14:49-62.
23. Niklas, K. J. 1995. Size-dependent allometry of tree height, diameter and trunk taper. Annals of Botany 75:217-227.
24. Niklas, K. J., and H.-C. Spatz. 2004. Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101:15661-15663.
25. Parviainen, T. 1999. Investigating the biomass and crown structure of mixed stand birch trees for process-based models. [In Finnish.] Thesis. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
26. Perez, D., M. Kanninen, F. Matamoros, W. Fonseca, and E. Chaves. 2004. Heartwood, sapwood and bark contents of Bombacopsis quinata in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 16:318-327.
27. Pretzsch, H. 2006. Species-specific allometric scaling under self-thinning: evidence from long-term plots in forest stands. Oecologia 146:572-583.
28. Shinozaki, K., K. Yoda, K. Hozumi, and T. Kira. 1964. A quantitative analysis of plant form: the pipe model theory. I. Basic analyses. Japanese Journal of Ecology 14:97-105.
29. Valentine, H. T., V. C. Baldwin, T. G. Gregoire, and H. E. Burkhart. 1994. Surrogates of foliar dry matter in Loblolly pine. Forest Science 40:576-585.
30. Valentine, H. T., and A. Mäkelä. 2005. Bridging process-based and empirical approaches to modeling tree growth. Tree Physiology 25:769-779.
31. Vanninen, P., and A. Mäkelä. 2000. Needle and stemwood production in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees of different age, size, and competitive status. Tree Physiology 20:527-533.
32. Vanninen, P., H. Ylitalo, R. Sievänen, and A. Mäkelä. 1996. Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine. Trees 10:231-238.
33. West, G. B., J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist. 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122-126.
34. West, G. B., J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist. 1999. A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400:664-667.
35. Zeide, B., and P. Pfeifer. 1991. A method for estimation of fractal dimension of tree crowns. Forest Science 37:1253-1265.