The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109506
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Varying growth response of Central European tree species to the extraordinary drought period of 2018 – 2020

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other studies that assessed the impact of the 2018-2020 drought on forests have consistently reported signs of tree drought stress, reduced growth and increased tree mortality, both during and after the drought period (Buras et al, 2020;Obladen et al, 2021;Pohl et al, 2023;Schnabel et al, 2022;Schuldt et al, 2020;Senf et al, 2020). While our reported growth reduction by 36.8 % lines up with the finding of an earlier study by Thom et al, 2023, that reported a 41.3% reduction during the 2018-2020 drought, it should be kept in mind that our reductions are biologically even higher, because we expect an ontogenetic increase (Pretzsch, 2020). While a generally favourable nutrient supply can alleviate drought impacts on trees (Schmied et al, 2023), our initial anticipation of less pronounced growth reductions, based on the consideration of the soil characteristics at the site (Altermann et al, 2005) -particularly its high fertility and favourable water relations (see Methods) -did not align with the observed outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Other studies that assessed the impact of the 2018-2020 drought on forests have consistently reported signs of tree drought stress, reduced growth and increased tree mortality, both during and after the drought period (Buras et al, 2020;Obladen et al, 2021;Pohl et al, 2023;Schnabel et al, 2022;Schuldt et al, 2020;Senf et al, 2020). While our reported growth reduction by 36.8 % lines up with the finding of an earlier study by Thom et al, 2023, that reported a 41.3% reduction during the 2018-2020 drought, it should be kept in mind that our reductions are biologically even higher, because we expect an ontogenetic increase (Pretzsch, 2020). While a generally favourable nutrient supply can alleviate drought impacts on trees (Schmied et al, 2023), our initial anticipation of less pronounced growth reductions, based on the consideration of the soil characteristics at the site (Altermann et al, 2005) -particularly its high fertility and favourable water relations (see Methods) -did not align with the observed outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Other studies that assessed the impact of the 2018-2020 drought on forests have consistently reported signs of tree drought stress, reduced growth and increased tree mortality, both during and after the drought period (Buras et al, 2020;Obladen et al, 2021;Pohl et al, 2023;Schnabel et al, 2022;Schuldt et al, 2020;Senf et al, 2020). Although our reported growth reduction by 36.8% lines up with the finding of an earlier study by Thom et al, 2023, that reported a 41.3% reduction during the 2018-2020 drought, it should be kept in mind that our reductions are biologically even higher, because we expect an ontogenetic increase (Pretzsch, 2020). Although a generally favourable nutrient supply can alleviate drought impacts on trees (Schmied et al, 2023), our initial anticipation of less pronounced growth reductions, based on the consideration of the soil characteristics at the site (Altermann et al, 2005)-particularly its high fertility and favourable water relations (see Section 2.1)-did not align with the observed outcomes.…”
Section: Strong Growth Reductions During Extreme Droughtsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…There are many studies on the role of intraspecific variation, which captures the diversity of phenotypes, in tree responses to drought (e.g. F. sylvatica; Baudis et al, 2014;Carsjens et al, 2014;Cocozza et al, 2016;Dounavi et al, 2016;González De Andrés et al, 2021;Leuschner, 2020;Thom et al, 2023;Wang et al, 2021), with the aim to improve decisionmaking in forest management and enhance forest resilience to climate change. Our experiment demonstrated a variety of physiological responses to decreased water availability.…”
Section: Intraspecific Variation In Drought Stress Responses Across G...mentioning
confidence: 99%