2011
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcr195
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No evidence of carbon limitation with tree age and height in Nothofagus pumilio under Mediterranean and temperate climate conditions

Abstract: The results indicate that concentrations of C storage in N. pumilio trees do not decrease with tree age or height, and that reduced C assimilation due to summer drought does not alter this pattern.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
20
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
3
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, as frost may occur year‐round at temperate treelines and the trees were sampled towards the end of the growing season (when trees should be prepared for frosts), the starch accumulation found in the current study seems to be more a consequence of the increase in carbon reserves following the stronger limitation of growth processes than the consequence of carbon gain. Increased carbon reserve concentrations have been proposed to indicate the increased carbon source–sink imbalance not only at treeline, but also under other environmental stresses that directly limit growth, for example, water limitations associated with ontogeny (Piper & Fajardo, 2011), or drought (Sala et al. , 2010; Muller et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as frost may occur year‐round at temperate treelines and the trees were sampled towards the end of the growing season (when trees should be prepared for frosts), the starch accumulation found in the current study seems to be more a consequence of the increase in carbon reserves following the stronger limitation of growth processes than the consequence of carbon gain. Increased carbon reserve concentrations have been proposed to indicate the increased carbon source–sink imbalance not only at treeline, but also under other environmental stresses that directly limit growth, for example, water limitations associated with ontogeny (Piper & Fajardo, 2011), or drought (Sala et al. , 2010; Muller et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is acknowledged that NSC indicates the C source-sink balance within the plant body and is sensitive to environmental conditions, e.g. NSC changes under water limitations associated with ontogeny (Piper and Fajardo 2011) and drought (Sala et al 2010;Muller et al 2011;Piper 2011;Fajardo et al 2012;Galvez et al 2013;Dickman et al 2014). In addition to the well-known environmental control of plant NSC, it has been long recognized that NSC concentration varies not only among plant functional types (growth forms) but also among species within functional types and within a same family and genus (Kozlowski 1992;Magel et al 2000;Newell et al 2002;Würth et al 2005;Hoch 2007;Poorter et al 2010;Zhang et al 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results resolve conflicting assumptions about the nature of tree growth, inform efforts to undertand and model forest carbon dynamics, and have additional implications for theories of resource allocation 11 and plant senescence 12 . A widely held assumption is that after an initial period of increasing growth, the mass growth rate of individual trees declines with increasing tree size 4,5,[13][14][15][16] . Although the results of a few single-species studies have been consistent with this assumption 15 , the bulk of evidence cited in support of declining growth is not based on measurements of individual tree mass growth.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A widely held assumption is that after an initial period of increasing growth, the mass growth rate of individual trees declines with increasing tree size 4,5,[13][14][15][16] . Although the results of a few single-species studies have been consistent with this assumption 15 , the bulk of evidence cited in support of declining growth is not based on measurements of individual tree mass growth. Instead, much of the cited evidence documents either the well-known age-related decline in net primary productivity (hereafter 'productivity') of even-aged forest stands 10 (in which the trees are all of a similar age) or size-related declines in the rate of mass gain per unit leaf area (or unit leaf mass) [8][9][10] , with the implicit assumption that declines at these scales must also apply at the scale of the individual tree.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%