Stand Composition, Tree Proximity and Size Have Minimal Effects on Leaf Function of Coexisting Aspen and Subalpine Fir.
Identifieur interne : 001813 ( Main/Corpus ); précédent : 001812; suivant : 001814Stand Composition, Tree Proximity and Size Have Minimal Effects on Leaf Function of Coexisting Aspen and Subalpine Fir.
Auteurs : Aaron C. Rhodes ; Trevor Barney ; Samuel B. St ClairSource :
- PloS one [ 1932-6203 ] ; 2016.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abies (anatomy & histology), Abies (physiology), Carbon (metabolism), Ecosystem (MeSH), Forests (MeSH), Fructose (metabolism), Glucose (metabolism), Plant Leaves (metabolism), Plant Roots (metabolism), Plant Stems (metabolism), Populus (anatomy & histology), Populus (physiology), Starch (metabolism), Trees (anatomy & histology), Trees (physiology).
- MESH :
- chemical , metabolism : Carbon, Fructose, Glucose, Starch.
- anatomy & histology : Abies, Populus, Trees.
- metabolism : Plant Leaves, Plant Roots, Plant Stems.
- physiology : Abies, Populus, Trees.
- Ecosystem, Forests.
Abstract
Forest structural heterogeneity due to species composition, spatial relationships and tree size are widely studied patterns in forest systems, but their impacts on tree function are not as well documented. The objective of this study was to examine how stand composition, tree proximity relationships and tree size influence the leaf functional traits of aspen, an early successional species, and subalpine fir, a climax species. We measured foliar nutrients, nonstructural carbohydrates (aspen only), defense chemistry and xylem water potential of aspen and subalpine fir trees in three size classes growing in close proximity or independently from other trees under three stand conditions: aspen dominant, aspen-conifer mixed, and conifer dominant stands. Close proximity of subalpine fir to aspen reduced aspen's storage of starch in foliar tissue by 17% suggesting that competition between these species may have small effects on carbon metabolism in aspen leaves. Simple sugar (glucose + sucrose) concentrations in aspen leaves were slightly higher in larger aspen trees than smaller trees. However, no differences were found in stem water potential, foliar concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, or secondary defense chemicals of aspen or subalpine fir across the gradients of stand composition, tree proximity or tree size. These results suggest that mechanisms of coexistence allow both aspen and subalpine fir to maintain leaf function across a wide range of stand structural characteristics. For aspen, resource sharing through its clonal root system and high resource storage capacity may partially contribute to its functional stability in mixed aspen-conifer stands.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154395
PubMed: 27124496
PubMed Central: PMC4849632
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:27124496Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Stand Composition, Tree Proximity and Size Have Minimal Effects on Leaf Function of Coexisting Aspen and Subalpine Fir.</title><author><name sortKey="Rhodes, Aaron C" sort="Rhodes, Aaron C" uniqKey="Rhodes A" first="Aaron C" last="Rhodes">Aaron C. Rhodes</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Barney, Trevor" sort="Barney, Trevor" uniqKey="Barney T" first="Trevor" last="Barney">Trevor Barney</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="St Clair, Samuel B" sort="St Clair, Samuel B" uniqKey="St Clair S" first="Samuel B" last="St Clair">Samuel B. St Clair</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2016">2016</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:27124496</idno><idno type="pmid">27124496</idno><idno type="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0154395</idno><idno type="pmc">PMC4849632</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001813</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">001813</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Stand Composition, Tree Proximity and Size Have Minimal Effects on Leaf Function of Coexisting Aspen and Subalpine Fir.</title><author><name sortKey="Rhodes, Aaron C" sort="Rhodes, Aaron C" uniqKey="Rhodes A" first="Aaron C" last="Rhodes">Aaron C. Rhodes</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Barney, Trevor" sort="Barney, Trevor" uniqKey="Barney T" first="Trevor" last="Barney">Trevor Barney</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="St Clair, Samuel B" sort="St Clair, Samuel B" uniqKey="St Clair S" first="Samuel B" last="St Clair">Samuel B. St Clair</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">PloS one</title><idno type="eISSN">1932-6203</idno><imprint><date when="2016" type="published">2016</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abies (anatomy & histology)</term><term>Abies (physiology)</term><term>Carbon (metabolism)</term><term>Ecosystem (MeSH)</term><term>Forests (MeSH)</term><term>Fructose (metabolism)</term><term>Glucose (metabolism)</term><term>Plant Leaves (metabolism)</term><term>Plant Roots (metabolism)</term><term>Plant Stems (metabolism)</term><term>Populus (anatomy & histology)</term><term>Populus (physiology)</term><term>Starch (metabolism)</term><term>Trees (anatomy & histology)</term><term>Trees (physiology)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="metabolism" xml:lang="en"><term>Carbon</term><term>Fructose</term><term>Glucose</term><term>Starch</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="anatomy & histology" xml:lang="en"><term>Abies</term><term>Populus</term><term>Trees</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="metabolism" xml:lang="en"><term>Plant Leaves</term><term>Plant Roots</term><term>Plant Stems</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="physiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Abies</term><term>Populus</term><term>Trees</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Ecosystem</term><term>Forests</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Forest structural heterogeneity due to species composition, spatial relationships and tree size are widely studied patterns in forest systems, but their impacts on tree function are not as well documented. The objective of this study was to examine how stand composition, tree proximity relationships and tree size influence the leaf functional traits of aspen, an early successional species, and subalpine fir, a climax species. We measured foliar nutrients, nonstructural carbohydrates (aspen only), defense chemistry and xylem water potential of aspen and subalpine fir trees in three size classes growing in close proximity or independently from other trees under three stand conditions: aspen dominant, aspen-conifer mixed, and conifer dominant stands. Close proximity of subalpine fir to aspen reduced aspen's storage of starch in foliar tissue by 17% suggesting that competition between these species may have small effects on carbon metabolism in aspen leaves. Simple sugar (glucose + sucrose) concentrations in aspen leaves were slightly higher in larger aspen trees than smaller trees. However, no differences were found in stem water potential, foliar concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, or secondary defense chemicals of aspen or subalpine fir across the gradients of stand composition, tree proximity or tree size. These results suggest that mechanisms of coexistence allow both aspen and subalpine fir to maintain leaf function across a wide range of stand structural characteristics. For aspen, resource sharing through its clonal root system and high resource storage capacity may partially contribute to its functional stability in mixed aspen-conifer stands.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">27124496</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2017</Year><Month>03</Month><Day>24</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2019</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>10</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Electronic-eCollection"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1932-6203</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>11</Volume><Issue>4</Issue><PubDate><Year>2016</Year></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>PloS one</Title><ISOAbbreviation>PLoS One</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Stand Composition, Tree Proximity and Size Have Minimal Effects on Leaf Function of Coexisting Aspen and Subalpine Fir.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>e0154395</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1371/journal.pone.0154395</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>Forest structural heterogeneity due to species composition, spatial relationships and tree size are widely studied patterns in forest systems, but their impacts on tree function are not as well documented. The objective of this study was to examine how stand composition, tree proximity relationships and tree size influence the leaf functional traits of aspen, an early successional species, and subalpine fir, a climax species. We measured foliar nutrients, nonstructural carbohydrates (aspen only), defense chemistry and xylem water potential of aspen and subalpine fir trees in three size classes growing in close proximity or independently from other trees under three stand conditions: aspen dominant, aspen-conifer mixed, and conifer dominant stands. Close proximity of subalpine fir to aspen reduced aspen's storage of starch in foliar tissue by 17% suggesting that competition between these species may have small effects on carbon metabolism in aspen leaves. Simple sugar (glucose + sucrose) concentrations in aspen leaves were slightly higher in larger aspen trees than smaller trees. However, no differences were found in stem water potential, foliar concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, or secondary defense chemicals of aspen or subalpine fir across the gradients of stand composition, tree proximity or tree size. These results suggest that mechanisms of coexistence allow both aspen and subalpine fir to maintain leaf function across a wide range of stand structural characteristics. For aspen, resource sharing through its clonal root system and high resource storage capacity may partially contribute to its functional stability in mixed aspen-conifer stands.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Rhodes</LastName><ForeName>Aaron C</ForeName><Initials>AC</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Barney</LastName><ForeName>Trevor</ForeName><Initials>T</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>St Clair</LastName><ForeName>Samuel B</ForeName><Initials>SB</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2016</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>28</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>PLoS One</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>101285081</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>1932-6203</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>30237-26-4</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D005632">Fructose</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>7440-44-0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D002244">Carbon</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>9005-25-8</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D013213">Starch</NameOfSubstance></Chemical><Chemical><RegistryNumber>IY9XDZ35W2</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D005947">Glucose</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D028202" MajorTopicYN="N">Abies</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000033" MajorTopicYN="N">anatomy & histology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="Y">physiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D002244" MajorTopicYN="N">Carbon</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="Y">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D017753" MajorTopicYN="N">Ecosystem</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D065928" MajorTopicYN="N">Forests</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005632" MajorTopicYN="N">Fructose</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="N">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005947" MajorTopicYN="N">Glucose</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="N">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D018515" MajorTopicYN="N">Plant Leaves</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="Y">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D018517" MajorTopicYN="N">Plant Roots</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="N">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D018547" MajorTopicYN="N">Plant Stems</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="N">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D032107" MajorTopicYN="N">Populus</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000033" MajorTopicYN="N">anatomy & histology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="Y">physiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D013213" MajorTopicYN="N">Starch</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000378" MajorTopicYN="N">metabolism</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014197" MajorTopicYN="N">Trees</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000033" MajorTopicYN="N">anatomy & histology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000502" MajorTopicYN="Y">physiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2015</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>15</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2016</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>11</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2016</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>29</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2016</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>29</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2017</Year><Month>3</Month><Day>25</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>epublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">27124496</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0154395</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">PONE-D-15-54147</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC4849632</ArticleId></ArticleIdList><ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Biom J. 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18481363</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Am Nat. 2001 Oct;158(4):438-50</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18707338</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Tree Physiol. 2011 Jan;31(1):68-77</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21389003</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Tree Physiol. 2011 Jun;31(6):582-91</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21602559</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Am Nat. 2011 Nov;178(5):E124-48</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22030738</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56843</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23451096</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Tree Physiol. 2015 Nov;35(11):1141-5</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26507272</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1994 Dec;100(3):302-308</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28307014</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1984 Nov;64(3):319-321</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28311446</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1986 Sep;70(2):227-233</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28311662</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference></ReferenceList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Bois/explor/PoplarV1/Data/Main/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001813 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001813 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Bois
|area= PoplarV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:27124496
|texte= Stand Composition, Tree Proximity and Size Have Minimal Effects on Leaf Function of Coexisting Aspen and Subalpine Fir.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:27124496" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a PoplarV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.37. |  |