1995
DOI: 10.2307/3545684
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hypotheses for the Evolution of Apical Dominance in Plants: Implications for the Interpretation of Overcompensation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
141
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 194 publications
(153 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
11
141
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We expected compensation for apical flower damage to result from an increase in branches or matured flowers, due to release from apical dominance restraints. Such compensation could additionally change plant phenology, aiding flower escape from herbivores in time (Aarssen 1995;Lehtilä 2000;Gruntman and Novoplansky 2011). Apical damage has led to compensation, and occasionally overcompensation, for herbivore damage in other systems.…”
Section: Electronic Supplementary Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We expected compensation for apical flower damage to result from an increase in branches or matured flowers, due to release from apical dominance restraints. Such compensation could additionally change plant phenology, aiding flower escape from herbivores in time (Aarssen 1995;Lehtilä 2000;Gruntman and Novoplansky 2011). Apical damage has led to compensation, and occasionally overcompensation, for herbivore damage in other systems.…”
Section: Electronic Supplementary Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Undamaged apical heads produced 58-76% of total plant seed production on average. That sustained flower bud release after early apical damage enabled greater seed contributions from later heads with reduced herbivory suggests there may be a cost of apical dominance in lower herbivory environments (Aarssen 1995). A large investment in the apical head not only presumably mitigates the fitness costs of the high average risk of cumulative floral herbivory but also the inhibition of later flower heads by apical dominance.…”
Section: Interaction Between Apical Damage and Cumulative Herbivorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One mechanism by which plants may compensate for herbivory is through the release of apical dominance and the associated increase in growth from non-apical meristems (Bazely & Jefferies, 1989;Trumble et al, 1993;Aarssen, 1995;Watson, 1995). Thus, a significant feature of plantherbivore interactions is the influence of feeding on plant growth and architecture.…”
Section: Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), which resulted in a more prostrate growth pattern from increases in lateral rather than terminal branching (Whitham & Mopper, 1985). Herbivore-mediated architectural changes in tree form are predicted to lead to disadvantages in competition for light, attraction of pollinators, and seed dispersal (Whitham & Mopper, 1985;Aarssen, 1995).…”
Section: Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Apical dominance is "the preferential growth of a plant shoot (or root) from the apical or terminal meristem and the corresponding suppression of lateral subtending meristems and branches" (Aarssen 1994). Several authors have discussed the adaptive significance of apical dominance in plant shoots (Brown et al 1967, Little 1970, Cline 1991, Aarssen 1994).…”
Section: Apical Dominancementioning
confidence: 99%