2021
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.13906
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are leaf, stem and hydraulic traits good predictors of individual tree growth?

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution-NonCo mmercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
18
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
3
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result suggests that while hydraulic traits, in particular P 50 and safety margins, may be linked to drought‐induced mortality, this link may be less clear for growth reductions, at least in our site. Under non‐drought conditions but across a water availability gradient in a Mediterranean climate where water is expected to be limited at least at some locations, Rosas et al (2021) found that functional and hydraulic traits were poor predictors of tree growth—further supporting our findings that hydraulic traits are not necessarily good predictors of tree growth under drought conditions. Soft functional traits were also weak predictors of growth at our site during drought, with only species with denser wood having slightly less growth decline during drought and trees with higher specific leaf area having greater drought‐induced growth declines on steep slopes where water is more limited (Schwartz et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…This result suggests that while hydraulic traits, in particular P 50 and safety margins, may be linked to drought‐induced mortality, this link may be less clear for growth reductions, at least in our site. Under non‐drought conditions but across a water availability gradient in a Mediterranean climate where water is expected to be limited at least at some locations, Rosas et al (2021) found that functional and hydraulic traits were poor predictors of tree growth—further supporting our findings that hydraulic traits are not necessarily good predictors of tree growth under drought conditions. Soft functional traits were also weak predictors of growth at our site during drought, with only species with denser wood having slightly less growth decline during drought and trees with higher specific leaf area having greater drought‐induced growth declines on steep slopes where water is more limited (Schwartz et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…A study of temperate forest showed that evergreen species spend most time in structure construction while deciduous species get the peak of leaf mass area soon after sprout (Ye, et al 2022), which indicated that deciduous species are "opportunist" which tend to favor quick resource turnover before the bad seasons, while evergreen species invest more resources in conservation and defense to get through the unfavorable seasons (Bai, et al 2015, Muledi, et al 2020. The difference of leaf traits and shifts of trait-rate relationship along environments between leaf habits may partially explain why many previous studies found limited correlation between functional traits and growth rate (Paine, et al 2015, Rosas, et al 2021, because there are complicated trait-environment interactions in a mixed forest (Feng, et al 2022, Vargas, et al 2021.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Differences in function are relevant in the context of community assembly, population dynamics and ecosystem processes under ongoing environmental change, with populations of the same species capable of responding differently (Bolnick et al, 2011; Kichenin et al, 2013; Rosas et al, 2021; Siefert et al, 2015; Tito et al, 2021; Vilà‐Cabrera et al, 2015). For example, intraspecific variation can drive differences in soil stability (Ali et al, 2017), rates of leaf litter decomposition (Lecerf & Chauvet, 2008) and radial growth rates (Laforest‐Lapointe et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%