Physiological, morphological and allocational plasticity in understory deciduous trees: Importance of plant size and light availability

Tree Physiology

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2004, Pages 775-784

  Delagrange, Sylvain ^a,b   Messier, Christian ^a   Lechowicz, Martin J ^c   Dizengremel, Pierre ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE LORRAINE   (France)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Acer saccharum; Betula alleghaniensis; Biomass partitioning; Carbon assimilation; Carbon balance; Crown morphology; Shading; Sugar maple; Tree height; Yellow birch

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS ALLOCATION; DECIDUOUS TREE; LIGHT AVAILABILITY; MORPHOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SIZE;

ACER; ACER SACCHARUM; BETULA; BETULA ALLEGHANIENSIS; SACCHARUM; SACCHARUM HYBRID CULTIVAR;

EID: 9144265882     PISSN: 0829318X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/24.7.775     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Amthor, J.S. 1986. Evolution and applicability of a whole plant respiration model. J. Theor. Biol. 122:473-490.
2. Baker, F.S. 1949. A revised tolerance table. J. For. 47:179-181.
3. Bazzaz, F.A. and R.W. Carlson. 1982. Photosynthetic acclimation to variability in the light environment of early and late successional plants. Oecologia 54:313-316.
4. Beaudet, M. and C. Messier. 1998. Growth and morphological responses of yellow birch, sugar maple and beech seedlings growing under a natural light gradient. Can. J. For. Res. 28:1007-1015.
5. Beaudet, M., C. Messier, D.W. Hilbert, E. Lo, Z. Wang and M.J. Lechowicz. 2000. Leaf and plant level carbon gain in yellow birch, sugar maple and American beech seedlings from contrasting forest light environments. Can. J. For. Res. 30:390-404.
6. Bellefleur, P. and G. LaRocque. 1983a. Comparaison de la croissance d'espèces ligneuses en milieu ouvert et sous couvert forestier. Can. J. For. Res. 13:508-513.
7. Bellefleur, P. and G. LaRocque. 1983b. Compétition pour le rayonnement solaire en début de succession secondaire dans une érablière à bouleau jaune et hêtre. Can. J. For. Res. 13:514-521.
8. Bond, B.J. 2000. Age-related changes in photosynthesis of woody plants. Trends Plant Sci. 5:349-353.
9. Canham, C.D. 1988. Growth and canopy architecture of shade tolerant trees: response to canopy gaps. Ecology 69:786-795.
10. Canham, C.D., J.S. Denslow, W.J. Platt, J.R. Runkle, T. Spies and P.S. White. 1990. Light regimes beneath closed canopies and tree-fall gaps in temperate and tropical forests. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 620-631.
11. Canham, C.D., R.K. Kobe, E.F. Latty and R.L. Chazdon. 1999. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in tree seedling survival: effects of allocation to roots versus carbohydrate reserves. Oecologia 121:1-11.
12. Ceschia, E. 2001. Environmental effects on spatial and seasonal variations of stem respiration in European beech and Norway spruce. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden, 55 p.
13. Claveau, Y., C. Messier, P.G. Comeau and K.D. Coates. 2002. Growth and crown morphological responses of boreal conifer seedlings and saplings with contrasting shade tolerance to a gradient of light and height. Can. J. For. Res. 32:458-468.
14. Erdmann, G.G. 1990. Betula alleghaniensis Britton, yellow birch. In Silvics of North America: Hardwoods. Vol. 2. E.U. Forest Service, Washington, DC, pp 133-147.
15. Forcier, L.K. 1975. Reproductive strategies and the co-occurrence of climax tree species. Science 189:808-811.
16. Gardiner, E.S. and J.D. Hodges. 1998. Growth and biomass distribution of cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda Raf.) seedlings as influenced by light availability. For. Ecol. Manage. 108:127-134
17. Gendron, F., C. Messier and P.G. Comeau. 1998. Comparison of various methods for estimating the mean growing season percent photosynthetic photon flux density in forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 91:55-70.
18. Givnish, T.J. 1988. Adaptation to sun and shade: a whole-plant perspective. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15:63-92.
19. Givnish, T.J. 1995. Plant stems: biochemical adaptation for energy capture and influence on species distribution. In Plant Stems: Physiology and Functional Morphology. Ed. B.L. Gartner, Academic Press, San Diego, pp 3-49.
20. Gleeson, S.K. and D. Tilman. 1992. Plant allocation and the multiple limitation hypothesis. Am. Nat. 139:1322-1343.
21. Godman, R.M., H.W. Yawney and C.H. Tubbs. 1990. Acer saccharum Marsh., sugar maple. In Silvics of North America: Hardwoods. Vol. 2. E.U. Forest Service, Washington, DC, pp 78-91.
22. Jarvis, P.G. 1976. The interpretation of the variation in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 273:593-610.
23. King, D.A. 1986. Tree form, height growth, and susceptibility to wind damage in Acer saccharum. Ecology 67:980-990.
24. Kobe, R.K. 1997. Carbohydrate allocation to storage as a basis of interspecific variation in sapling survivorship and growth. Oikos 80:226-233.
25. Le Roux, X., H. Sinoquet and M. Vandame. 1999. Spatial distribution of leaf dry weight per area and leaf nitrogen concentration in relation to local radiation regime within an isolated tree crown. Tree Physiol. 19:181-188.
26. McClure, J.W., T.D. Lee and W.B. Leak. 2000. Gap capture in northern hardwoods: patterns of establishment and height growth in four species. For. Ecol. Manage. 127:181-189.
27. McConnaughay, K.D.M. and J.S. Coleman. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581-2593.
28. McDowell, N., H. Barnard, B.J. Bond et al. 2002. The relationship between tree height and leaf area:sapwood area ratio. Oecologia 132:12-20.
29. Meinzer, F.C. 2003. Functional convergence in plant responses to the environment. Oecologia 134:1-11.
30. Messier, C. and E. Nikinmaa. 2000. Effect of light availability and sapling size on growth, biomass allocation and crown morphology of understory sugar maple, yellow birch and American beech. Ecoscience 7:345-356.
31. Messier, C. and P. Puttonen. 1995. Spatial and temporal variation in the light environment of developing Scots pine stands: the basis for a quick and efficient method of characterizing light. Can. J. For. Res. 25:343-354.
32. Messier, C., R. Doucet, J.-C. Ruel, Y. Claveau, C. Kelly and M.J. Lechowicz. 1999. Functional ecology of advance regeneration in relation to light in boreal forests. Can. J. For. Res. 29:812-823.
33. 2] responses of understory saplings with differing allometry and architecture. Funct. Ecol. 15:263-273.
34. Niinemets, Ü., O. Kull and J.D. Tenhunen. 1998. An analysis of light effects on foliar morphology, physiology, and light interception in temperate deciduous woody species of contrasting shade tolerance. Tree Physiol. 18:681-696.
35. Niklas, K.J. 1992. Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 607 p.
36. Perttunen, J., R. Sievänen and E. Nikinmaa. 1998. LIGNUM: a model combining the structure and the functioning of trees. Ecol. Model. 108:189-198.
37. Poorter L. and M.J.A. Werger. 1999. Light environment, sapling architecture, and leaf display in six rain forest tree species. Am. J. Bot. 86:1464-1473.
38. Ricard, J.-P., C. Messier, S. Delagrange and M. Beaudet. 2003. Do understory saplings respond to light and below-ground competition?: a field experiment in a north-eastern American hardwood forest and a literature review. Ann. For. Sci. 60:749-756.
39. Runkle, J.R. 1982. Pattern of disturbance in some old-growth mesic forest of eastern North America. Ecology 63:1533-1546.
40. Ryan, M.G., B.J. Bond, B.E. Law, R.M. Hubbard, D. Woodruff, E. Cienciala and J. Kučera. 2000. Transpiration and whole-tree conductance in ponderosa pine trees of different heights. Oecologia 124:553-560.
41. Sprugel, D.G., T.M. Hinckley and W. Schaap. 1991. The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22:309-334.
42. Sterck, F.J. and F. Bongers. 2001. Crown development in tropical rain forest trees: patterns with tree height and light availability. J. Ecol. 89:1-13.
43. Tilman, D. 1988. Mechanisms of competition for nutrients and light. In Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 52-97.
44. Valladares, F., J.M. Chico, I. Aranda, L. Balaguer, P. Dizengremel, E. Manrique and E. Dreyer. 2002. The greater seedling high-light tolerance of Quercus robur over Fagus sylvatica is linked to greater physiological plasticity. Trees 16:359-403.
45. Walters, M.B. and P.B. Reich. 1999. Research review. Low-light carbon balance and shade tolerance in seedlings of woody plants: do winter deciduous and broad-leaved evergreen species differ? New Phytol. 143:143-154.
46. Waring, R.H. 1987. Characteristics of trees predisposed to die. BioScience 37:569-574.
47. Woods, K.D. 2000. Dynamics in late-successional hemlock-hardwood forests over three decades. Ecology 81:110-126.