2015
DOI: 10.1007/s00468-015-1225-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Response of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies to the interactive effect of neighbor identity and enhanced CO2 levels

Abstract: Enhanced levels of CO 2 affected both the nutrition and morphology of both species. The effect of interspecific competition was dependent on the species identity but not on the CO 2 level. AbstractThe interest in adaptive forest strategies to overcome predicted scenarios of climate change is increasing worldwide. An example of these strategies is the introduction of native species into mono-specific plantations. However, to fully consider this option/strategy, a higher understanding of the responses of forest … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…, Rolo et al. ). Similarly, facilitated saplings would show a more resource‐acquisitive strategy than those growing in open areas (García‐Cervigón et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…, Rolo et al. ). Similarly, facilitated saplings would show a more resource‐acquisitive strategy than those growing in open areas (García‐Cervigón et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrary to our expectations, nonetheless, the rest of leaf and shoot traits did not differ between microhabitats. Acclimation of plants to shade involves lower LMA, and greater LAR and LMF to optimize light harvesting (Lambers et al 2008, Rolo et al 2015. Similarly, facilitated saplings would show a more resource-acquisitive strategy than those growing in open areas (Garc ıa-Cervig on et al 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Most importantly, the majority of the studies neither distinguish between individual sugar levels nor even between soluble carbohydrates and starch (e.g. Bader et al 2010;Rolo et al 2015).…”
Section: The Different Starch Quantification Methods Provide Complemementioning
confidence: 99%