2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-014-2143-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of two contrasting canopy manipulations on growth and water use of London plane (Platanus x acerifolia) trees

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2013 and 5 2014 started out similar, but in 2013 the leaves started going partly brown in the beginning of August, likely due to the warmer and drier conditions this summer. Leaf area density was not measured in this study but has previously been found to vary between 0.3 and 0.5 for unpruned Platanus × acerifolia (Hipps et al 2014).…”
Section: Study Sitesmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…2013 and 5 2014 started out similar, but in 2013 the leaves started going partly brown in the beginning of August, likely due to the warmer and drier conditions this summer. Leaf area density was not measured in this study but has previously been found to vary between 0.3 and 0.5 for unpruned Platanus × acerifolia (Hipps et al 2014).…”
Section: Study Sitesmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Griffin et al (2010) and Shober et al (2010) tracked xylem water potential to determine tree establishment in a high summer rainfall climate. Here, we showed that stomatal sensitivity to root loss is amplified by high ET o (Hipps et al, 2014) on transplanted trees with higher leaf area:root ratio (Dostalek et al, 2009;Riikonen et al, 2011). Stomatal closure mediates root loss and dry to moderate xylem water tension enough that water potential is not a good measure of root establishment following transplanting in dry climates.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Transplanted deciduous trees balance transpiring leaf area against root loss by reducing leaf number and size (Dostalek et al, 2009;Riikonen et al, 2011), particularly BR trees with greater root loss (Abod and Webster, 1990;Gunnel et al, 2008). Leaf area can be managed to accommodate root system reduction, again particularly for BR trees, with careful pruning to reduce water stress after transplanting (Dagit and Downer, 2002;Hipps et al, 2014;Ranney et al, 1989).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stand transpiration accounted for over half of the total water consumption (Chen et al, 2016), thus, management measures are necessary to suppress plant transpiration and prevent soil desiccation. Pruning can be an effective way to reduce tree water use by changing the canopy architecture and reducing canopy leaf area, leading to an improvement in the soil water replenishment rate (Shelden and Sinclair, 2000;López et al, 2008;Hipps et al, 2014;Afonso et al, 2017). However, pruning of tree canopies should be at an appropriate intensity, or it may be more effectively coupled to the atmosphere, as it increases rather than decreases transpiration (Jarvis and Mcnaughton, 1986;Wullschleger et al, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jackson et al (2000) found that only severe pruning of tree canopies reduced the water requirements of trees. Hipps et al (2014) also argued that canopy thinning (removal of 30% of the lateral branches) had no effect on limiting water demand, whereas canopy reduction (removal of the outer 30% of all major branches) conserved soil moisture for up to three years. A similar phenomenon was observed in our study, that is, soil water storage increased under three pruning intensities (C 1 , C 2 and C 3 ) compared to CK pruning intensity, and high (C 3 ) pruning intensity had better water conservation effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%