The effect of phase change on annual growth increment in eastern larch (Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch)

Greenwood, Michael S.

doi:10.1051/forest:19890540

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is little doubt that the maximum size attained by a tree is ultimately constrained by genetic, rather than physical considerations ( Greenwood 1989; Hara, Kimura & Kikuzawa 1991), and this partly explains why site quality, as measured by the dominant height on age relationship, varies interspecifically ( Philip 1994). Based on reasonable estimates of the tensile strength of water and the forces necessary to overcome friction and gravity during water transport, Mohr & Schopfer (1995) predicted that trees taller than 150 m are improbable, and indeed the tallest measured trees rise to just short of this height ( Salisbury & Ross 1992).…”

Section: Physical Vs Genetic Constraints On Hydraulic Transport and Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydraulic limitation of tree height: a critique

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Physical Vs Genetic Constraints On Hydraulic Transport and Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydraulic limitation of tree height: a critique

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1986, Long andSmith 1992, Rudnicki et al 2003); (3) genetic programming (Greenwood 1989, Haffner et al 1991; (4) reduced leaf area or photosynthetic capacity caused by declining nutrient availability; or (5) reduced foliar growth and perhaps photosynthesis because of reduced tugor pressure with tree height (Woodruff et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hydraulic limitation reduces stomatal conductance or photosynthesis in some tall trees (Yoder et al 1994, Hubbard et al 1999, but not all (Phillips et al 2001, Barnard and. The growth of scions from different-aged trees grafted to young rootstock varied with scion age, suggesting a link between tree age and physiology (Greenwood 1989); however, evidence of differences in photosynthetic capacity with tree size is sparse. Loss of leaf area is common with stand development after canopy closure, but productivity losses are generally greater than can be attributed to leaf area decline (Ryan et al 1997a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2) GPP declines with stand age as a result of physiological or structural changes (Mö ller et al 1954, Ryan andWaring 1992), and the decline in aboveground wood production is proportional to the decline in GPP. A decline in GPP could be driven by reduced canopy leaf area and photosynthetic capacity resulting from increasing nutrient limitation (Gower et al 1996), reduced leaf area from increased abrasion between tree canopies (Putz et al 1984, Marchand et al 1986, Long and Smith 1992, Rudnicki et al 2003, reduced photosynthetic capacity from ontogenetic changes in gene expression (Greenwood 1989, Haffner et al 1991, reduced foliar expansion from lower turgor pressure (Woodruff et al 2004), or reduced photosynthetic performance from hydraulic limitation of water flux as tree height increases (Yoder et al 1994, Ryan andYoder 1997). 3) GPP declines with stand age (as a result of one or more of the processes listed in hypothesis 2), but the decline in wood production is disproportionately larger because partitioning also shifts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Loss of leaf area is common with stand development after canopy closure, but productivity losses are generally greater than can be attributed to leaf area decline (Ryan et al 1997a). The growth of scions from different-aged trees grafted to young rootstock varied with scion age, suggesting a link between tree age and physiology (Greenwood 1989); however, evidence of differences in photosynthetic capacity with tree size is sparse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Experimental Test of the Causes of Forest Growth Decline With Stand Age

Ryan

Binkley

Fownes

et al. 2004

Ecological Monographs

339

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decline in aboveground wood production after canopy closure in even-aged forest stands is a common pattern in forests, but clear evidence for the mechanism causing the decline is lacking. The problem is fundamental to forest biology, commercial forestry (the decline sets the rotation age), and to carbon storage in forests. We tested three hypotheses about mechanisms causing the decline in wood growth by quantifying the complete carbon budget of developing stands for over six years (a full rotation) in replicated plantations of Eucalyptus saligna near Pepeekeo, Hawaii. Our first hypothesis was that gross primary production (GPP) does not decline with stand age, and that the decline in wood growth results from a shift in partitioning from wood production to respiration (as tree biomass accumulates), total belowground carbon allocation (as a result of declining soil nutrient supply), or some combination of these or other sinks. An alternative hypothesis was that GPP declines with stand age and that the decline in aboveground wood production is proportional to the decline in GPP. A decline in GPP could be driven by reduced canopy leaf area and photosynthetic capacity resulting from increasing nutrient limitation, increased abrasion between tree canopies, lower turgor pressure to drive foliar expansion, or hydraulic limitation of water flux as tree height increases. A final hypothesis was a combination of the first two: GPP declines, but the decline in wood production is disproportionately larger because partitioning shifts as well.We measured the entire annual carbon budget (aboveground production and respiration, total belowground carbon allocation [TBCA], and GPP) from 0.5 years after seedling planting through 6½ years (when trees were ϳ25 m tall). The replicated plots included two densities of trees (1111 trees/ha and 10 000 trees/ha) to vary the ratio of canopy leaf mass to wood mass in the individual trees, and three fertilization regimes (minimal, intensive, and minimal followed by intensive after three years) to assess the role of nutrition in shaping the decline in GPP and aboveground wood production.The forest closed its canopy in 1-2 years, with peak aboveground wood production, coinciding with canopy closure, of 1.2-1.8 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 . Aboveground wood production declined from 1.4 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 2 to 0.60 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 6. Hypothesis 1 failed: GPP declined from 5.0 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 2 to 3.2 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 6. Aboveground woody respiration declined from 0.66 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 2 to 0.22 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 6 and TBCA declined from 1.9 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 2 to 1.4 kg C·m Ϫ2 ·yr Ϫ1 at age 6. Our data supported hypothesis 3: the decline in aboveground wood production (42% of peak) was proportionally greater than the decline in canopy photosynthesis (64% of peak). The fraction of GPP partitioned to belowground allocation and foliar respiration increased with stand age and contributed to the decline in aboveground wood production. The decline in GPP was not ca...

show abstract