Hydraulic and mechanical stem properties affect leaf-stem allometry in mango cultivars

New Phytologist

Volumn 178, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 590-602

  Normand, F ^a   Bissery, C ^a   Damour, G ^a   Lauri, P E ^a  

^a CIRAD   (France)

Author keywords

Allometry; Biomass allocation; Hydraulic conductivity; Leaf stem relationship; Mangifera indica (mango); R union Island; Standardized major axis (SMA) method; Stem density

Indexed keywords

WATER;

ALLOMETRY; BIOMASS ALLOCATION; CULTIVAR; EVERGREEN TREE; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; LEAF MORPHOLOGY; STEM;

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; HISTOLOGY; MANGO; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT LEAF; PLANT STEM; TIME;

BIOMECHANICS; MANGIFERA; PLANT LEAVES; PLANT STEMS; TIME FACTORS; WATER;

INDIAN OCEAN; INDIAN OCEAN ISLANDS; MASCARENE ISLANDS; REUNION;

MANGIFERA INDICA;

EID: 42449121039     PISSN: 0028646X     EISSN: 14698137     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02380.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alméras T, Costes E, Salles JC. 2004. Identification of biomechanical factors involved in stem shape variability between apricot tree varieties. Annals of Botany 93 : 455 468.
2. Bompard JM, Schnell RJ. 1997. Taxonomy and systematics. In : Litz RE, ed. The mango, botany, production and uses. Wallingford, UK : CAB International, 21 47.
3. Brouat C, Gibernau M, Amsellem L, McKey D. 1998. Corner's rules revisited: ontogenetic and interspecific patterns in leaf-stem allometry. New Phytologist 139 : 459 470.
4. Campbell RJ. 1992. Guide to mangos in Florida. Miami, FL, USA : Fairchild Botanical Garden.
5. Cavender-Bares J, Holbrook NM. 2001. Hydraulic properties and freezing-induced cavitation in sympatric evergreen and deciduous oaks with contrasting habitats. Plant, Cell & Environment 24 : 1243 1256.
6. Cilas C, Montagnon C, Bertrand B, Godin C. 2000. Wood elasticity of several Coffea canephora Pierre clones. A new trait to be included in selection schemes. Agronomie 20 : 439 444.
7. Corner EJH. 1949. The Durian theory or the origin of the modern tree. Annals of Botany (NS) 13 : 367 414.
8. Dalgaard P. 2002. Introductory statistics with R. New York, NY, USA : Springer.
9. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ. 2001. Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410 : 655 660.
10. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ. 2002. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 295 : 1517 1520.
11. Farnsworth KD, Van Gardingen PR. 1995. Allometric analysis of Sitka spruce branches: mechanical versus hydraulic design principles. Trees 10 : 1 12.
12. Hallé F, Oldeman RAA, Tomlinson PB. 1978. Tropical trees and forests. An architectural analysis. Berlin, Germany : Springer-Verlag.
13. Harvey PJ, Pagel MD. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
14. Jacobsen AL, Agenbag L, Esler KJ, Pratt RB, Ewers FW, Davis SD. 2007. Xylem density, biomechanics and anatomical traits correlate with water stress in 17 evergreen shrub species of the Mediterranean-type climate region of South Africa. Journal of Ecology 95 : 171 183.
15. Kajimoto T, Matsuura Y, Osawa A, Abaimov AP, Zyryanova OA, Isaev AP, Yefremov DP, Mori S, Koike T. 2006. Size-mass allometry and biomass allocation of two larch species growing on the continuous permafrost region in Siberia. Forest Ecology and Management 222 : 314 325.
16. Kenefic LS, Seymour RS. 1999. Leaf area prediction models for Tsuga canadensis in Maine. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 29 : 1574 1582.
17. Ketterings QM, Coe R, van Noordwijk M, Ambagau Y, Palm CA. 2001. Reducing uncertainty in the use of allometric biomass equations for predicting above-ground tree biomass in mixed secondary forests. Forest Ecology and Management 146 : 199 209.
18. Knight RJ Jr. 1997. Important mango cultivars and their descriptors. In : Litz RE, ed. The mango, botany, production and uses. Wallingford, UK : CAB International, 545 565.
19. Komiyama A, Poungparn S, Kato S. 2005. Common allometric equations for estimating the tree weight of mangroves. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21 : 471 477.
20. Lauri PÉ, Kelner JJ. 2001. Shoot type demography and dry matter partitioning: a morphometric approach in apple (Malus × domestica). Canadian Journal of Botany 79 : 1270 1273.
21. Lauri PÉ, Térouanne É. 1991. Eléments pour une approche morphométrique de la croissance végétale et de la floraison: le cas d'espèces tropicales du modèle de Leeuwenberg. Canadian Journal of Botany 69 : 2095 2112.
22. Monserud RA, Marshall JD. 1999. Allometric crown relations in three northern Idaho conifer species. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 29 : 521 535.
23. Niklas KJ. 1992. Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. Chicago, IL, USA : University of Chicago Press.
24. Niklas KJ. 2006. A phyletic perspective on the allometry of plant biomass-partitioning patterns and functionally equivalent organ-categories. New Phytologist 171 : 27 40.
25. Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ. 2002. On the vegetative biomass partitioning of seed plant leaves, stems, and roots. American Naturalist 159 : 482 497.
26. Normand F, Magne C, Lauri PÉ. (in press). Effect of flowering and fruiting on branching of young mango trees - an architectural approach. Acta Horticulturae.
27. Patiño S, Tyree MT, Herre EA. 1995. Comparison of hydraulic architecture of woody plants of differing phylogeny and growth form with special reference to free-standing and hemiepiphytic Ficus species from Panama. New Phytologist 129 : 125 134.
28. Porté A, Trichet P, Bert D, Loustau D. 2002. Allometric relationships for branch and tree woody biomass of Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aït). Forest Ecology and Management 158 : 71 83.
29. Preston KA, Ackerly DD. 2003. Hydraulic architecture and the evolution of shoot allometry in contrasting climates. American Journal of Botany 90 : 1502 1512.
30. R Development Core Team. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria : R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [ http://www.R-project.org.]
31. Rosner S, Klein A, Müller U, Karlsson B. 2007. Hydraulic and mechanical properties of young Norway spruce clones related to growth and wood structure. Tree Physiology 27 : 1165 1178.
32. Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T. 1964. A quantitative analysis of plant form. The pipe model theory. I. Basic analysis. Japanese Journal of Ecology 14 : 97 105.
33. Shucun S, Dongmei J, Peili S. 2006. The leaf size-twig size spectrum of temperate woody species along an altitudinal gradient: an invariant allometric scaling relationship. Annals of Botany 97 : 97 107.
34. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. New York, NY, USA : Freeman.
35. Taneda H, Tateno M. 2004. The criteria for biomass partitioning of the current shoot: water transport versus mechanical support. American Journal of Botany 91 : 1949 1959.
36. Tausend PC, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC. 2000. Water utilization, plant hydraulic properties and xylem vulnerability in three contrasting coffee (Coffea arabica) cultivars. Tree Physiology 20 : 159 168.
37. Tyree MT, Zimmermann MH. 2002. Xylem structure and the ascent of sap. 2nd edn. Berlin, Germany : Springer-Verlag.
38. Vander Willigen C, Sherwin HW, Pammenter NW. 2000. Xylem hydraulic characteristics of subtropical trees from contrasting habitats grown under identical environmental conditions. New Phytologist 145 : 51 59.
39. Venables WN, Ripley BD. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. New York, NY, USA : Springer.
40. Vincenot D. 2004. Mangues de La Réunion - origines, histoire, caractéristiques, usages culinaires. Saint-Denis, France : Océan Editions.
41. Warton DI, translated to R by Ormerod J. 2005. SMATR: (Standardised) major axis estimation and testing routines. R package version 2.0. [ http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/∼dwarton ]
42. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M. 2006. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biological Reviews 81 : 259 291.
43. Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ. 2002. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 : 125 159.
44. Westoby M, Wright IJ. 2003. The leaf size - twig size spectrum and its relationship to other important spectra of variation among species. Oecologia 135 : 621 628.
45. Westwood MN, Roberts AN. 1970. The relationship between trunk cross-sectional area and weight of apple trees. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 95 : 28 30.
46. White PS. 1983a. Evidence that temperate East North American evergreen woody plants follow Corner's rules. New Phytologist 95 : 139 145.
47. White PS. 1983b. Corner's rules in eastern deciduous trees: allometry and its implication for the adaptive architecture of trees. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 110 : 203 212.
48. Woodrum CL, Ewers FW, Telewski FW. 2003. Hydraulic, biomechanical, and anatomical interactions of xylem from five species of Acer (Aceraceae). American Journal of Botany 90 : 693 699.
49. Wright IJ, Ackerly DD, Bongers F, Harms KE, Ibarra-Manriquez G, Martinez-Ramos M, Mazer SJ, Muller-Landau HC, Paz H, Pitman NCA et al. 2007. Relationships among ecologically important dimensions of plant trait variation in seven neotropical forests. Annals of Botany 99 : 1003 1015.