Resolving the differences in plant burial responses
Identifieur interne : 000180 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000179; suivant : 000181Resolving the differences in plant burial responses
Auteurs : Matthew E. Gilbert ; Brad S. RipleySource :
- Austral Ecology [ 1442-9985 ] ; 2010-02.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Allocation shifts, Ammophila, Ammophila breviligulata, Ammophila species, Australia synthesis, Authors journal compilation, Biomass, Biomass allocation, Breviligulata, Burial, Burial depth, Burial depths, Burial height, Burial response, Burial responses, Cakile edentula, Chamaecrista chamaecristoides, Clonal integration, Dech maun, Desert environments, Dune, Dune plants, Dune species, Ecol, Ecological society, Ecology, Enhancement, Experimental burial, Experimental conditions, Experimental procedure, Experimental procedures, Gilbert ripley, Greenhouse, Growth response, Growth responses, Harris davy, Laboratory experiments, Laboratory studies, Lapierre, Largest enhancements, Literature analysis, Literature survey, Little maun, Lower burial depths, Many species, Many studies, Mass fraction, Mass production, Maun, Maun lapierre, Maun perumal, More studies, More work, Nutrient limitation, Perumal, Perumal maun, Photosynthesis, Photosynthesis data, Photosynthetic, Photosynthetic rate, Photosynthetic rates, Plant burial response, Plant growth, Plant height, Plant mass, Plant species, Reproductive tissue, Rhodes university, Salt spray, Sand burial, Seedling, Single points, Sykes, Sykes wilson, Time courses, Total mass, Total mass accumulation, Total plant mass, Unburied, Unburied plants, Unburied treatment, Unburied treatment value, Unburied treatments, Yuan, Zhang.
- Teeft :
- Allocation shifts, Ammophila, Ammophila breviligulata, Ammophila species, Australia synthesis, Authors journal compilation, Biomass, Biomass allocation, Breviligulata, Burial, Burial depth, Burial depths, Burial height, Burial response, Burial responses, Cakile edentula, Chamaecrista chamaecristoides, Clonal integration, Dech maun, Desert environments, Dune, Dune plants, Dune species, Ecol, Ecological society, Ecology, Enhancement, Experimental burial, Experimental conditions, Experimental procedure, Experimental procedures, Gilbert ripley, Greenhouse, Growth response, Growth responses, Harris davy, Laboratory experiments, Laboratory studies, Lapierre, Largest enhancements, Literature analysis, Literature survey, Little maun, Lower burial depths, Many species, Many studies, Mass fraction, Mass production, Maun, Maun lapierre, Maun perumal, More studies, More work, Nutrient limitation, Perumal, Perumal maun, Photosynthesis, Photosynthesis data, Photosynthetic, Photosynthetic rate, Photosynthetic rates, Plant burial response, Plant growth, Plant height, Plant mass, Plant species, Reproductive tissue, Rhodes university, Salt spray, Sand burial, Seedling, Single points, Sykes, Sykes wilson, Time courses, Total mass, Total mass accumulation, Total plant mass, Unburied, Unburied plants, Unburied treatment, Unburied treatment value, Unburied treatments, Yuan, Zhang.
Abstract
Burial is one of the major factors influencing plant ecology in deserts and coastal areas. Consequently, many studies have measured the responses of dune plants to sand burial. However, there remains little agreement about the mechanisms and characteristics constituting the burial response of plants. In particular, stimulation of growth has been reported as the most common plant burial response; however, stimulation has not been reported consistently among studies. Here, a literature survey showed that the depth of burial relative to the height of the plant determined whether the growth of a species was stimulated by burial. Growth stimulation was limited to shallow burial depths, while burial depths greater than the height of the plant consistently resulted in reduced growth. As studies used widely differing burial depths or units of growth measurement, the variation in reported stimulation of plant growth can be partly attributed to differences in experimental procedure. The stimulation of growth in many species was accompanied by an increase in photosynthesis over a limited period and by a shift in biomass allocation from root to shoot. Most plants demonstrated stimulated growth (up to 200%) in response to shallow burial indicating that some burial response mechanisms are general to many species. However, a few specialist dune species displayed a much greater ability to respond to burial (up to 700% stimulation of plant mass). Although allocation shifts and increased photosynthesis have been shown to be associated with dune plant burial response, there remains a need for field measurements that focus on the diversity of mechanisms underlying plant response to burial.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02011.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DFLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title><author><name sortKey="Gilbert, Matthew E" sort="Gilbert, Matthew E" uniqKey="Gilbert M" first="Matthew E." last="Gilbert">Matthew E. Gilbert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Ripley, Brad S" sort="Ripley, Brad S" uniqKey="Ripley B" first="Brad S." last="Ripley">Brad S. Ripley</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02011.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000180</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000180</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title><author><name sortKey="Gilbert, Matthew E" sort="Gilbert, Matthew E" uniqKey="Gilbert M" first="Matthew E." last="Gilbert">Matthew E. Gilbert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Ripley, Brad S" sort="Ripley, Brad S" uniqKey="Ripley B" first="Brad S." last="Ripley">Brad S. Ripley</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Austral Ecology</title><title level="j" type="alt">AUSTRAL ECOLOGY</title><idno type="ISSN">1442-9985</idno><idno type="eISSN">1442-9993</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">35</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="53">53</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="59">59</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><pubPlace>Melbourne, Australia</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-02">2010-02</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1442-9985</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1442-9985</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Allocation shifts</term><term>Ammophila</term><term>Ammophila breviligulata</term><term>Ammophila species</term><term>Australia synthesis</term><term>Authors journal compilation</term><term>Biomass</term><term>Biomass allocation</term><term>Breviligulata</term><term>Burial</term><term>Burial depth</term><term>Burial depths</term><term>Burial height</term><term>Burial response</term><term>Burial responses</term><term>Cakile edentula</term><term>Chamaecrista chamaecristoides</term><term>Clonal integration</term><term>Dech maun</term><term>Desert environments</term><term>Dune</term><term>Dune plants</term><term>Dune species</term><term>Ecol</term><term>Ecological society</term><term>Ecology</term><term>Enhancement</term><term>Experimental burial</term><term>Experimental conditions</term><term>Experimental procedure</term><term>Experimental procedures</term><term>Gilbert ripley</term><term>Greenhouse</term><term>Growth response</term><term>Growth responses</term><term>Harris davy</term><term>Laboratory experiments</term><term>Laboratory studies</term><term>Lapierre</term><term>Largest enhancements</term><term>Literature analysis</term><term>Literature survey</term><term>Little maun</term><term>Lower burial depths</term><term>Many species</term><term>Many studies</term><term>Mass fraction</term><term>Mass production</term><term>Maun</term><term>Maun lapierre</term><term>Maun perumal</term><term>More studies</term><term>More work</term><term>Nutrient limitation</term><term>Perumal</term><term>Perumal maun</term><term>Photosynthesis</term><term>Photosynthesis data</term><term>Photosynthetic</term><term>Photosynthetic rate</term><term>Photosynthetic rates</term><term>Plant burial response</term><term>Plant growth</term><term>Plant height</term><term>Plant mass</term><term>Plant species</term><term>Reproductive tissue</term><term>Rhodes university</term><term>Salt spray</term><term>Sand burial</term><term>Seedling</term><term>Single points</term><term>Sykes</term><term>Sykes wilson</term><term>Time courses</term><term>Total mass</term><term>Total mass accumulation</term><term>Total plant mass</term><term>Unburied</term><term>Unburied plants</term><term>Unburied treatment</term><term>Unburied treatment value</term><term>Unburied treatments</term><term>Yuan</term><term>Zhang</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Allocation shifts</term><term>Ammophila</term><term>Ammophila breviligulata</term><term>Ammophila species</term><term>Australia synthesis</term><term>Authors journal compilation</term><term>Biomass</term><term>Biomass allocation</term><term>Breviligulata</term><term>Burial</term><term>Burial depth</term><term>Burial depths</term><term>Burial height</term><term>Burial response</term><term>Burial responses</term><term>Cakile edentula</term><term>Chamaecrista chamaecristoides</term><term>Clonal integration</term><term>Dech maun</term><term>Desert environments</term><term>Dune</term><term>Dune plants</term><term>Dune species</term><term>Ecol</term><term>Ecological society</term><term>Ecology</term><term>Enhancement</term><term>Experimental burial</term><term>Experimental conditions</term><term>Experimental procedure</term><term>Experimental procedures</term><term>Gilbert ripley</term><term>Greenhouse</term><term>Growth response</term><term>Growth responses</term><term>Harris davy</term><term>Laboratory experiments</term><term>Laboratory studies</term><term>Lapierre</term><term>Largest enhancements</term><term>Literature analysis</term><term>Literature survey</term><term>Little maun</term><term>Lower burial depths</term><term>Many species</term><term>Many studies</term><term>Mass fraction</term><term>Mass production</term><term>Maun</term><term>Maun lapierre</term><term>Maun perumal</term><term>More studies</term><term>More work</term><term>Nutrient limitation</term><term>Perumal</term><term>Perumal maun</term><term>Photosynthesis</term><term>Photosynthesis data</term><term>Photosynthetic</term><term>Photosynthetic rate</term><term>Photosynthetic rates</term><term>Plant burial response</term><term>Plant growth</term><term>Plant height</term><term>Plant mass</term><term>Plant species</term><term>Reproductive tissue</term><term>Rhodes university</term><term>Salt spray</term><term>Sand burial</term><term>Seedling</term><term>Single points</term><term>Sykes</term><term>Sykes wilson</term><term>Time courses</term><term>Total mass</term><term>Total mass accumulation</term><term>Total plant mass</term><term>Unburied</term><term>Unburied plants</term><term>Unburied treatment</term><term>Unburied treatment value</term><term>Unburied treatments</term><term>Yuan</term><term>Zhang</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Burial is one of the major factors influencing plant ecology in deserts and coastal areas. Consequently, many studies have measured the responses of dune plants to sand burial. However, there remains little agreement about the mechanisms and characteristics constituting the burial response of plants. In particular, stimulation of growth has been reported as the most common plant burial response; however, stimulation has not been reported consistently among studies. Here, a literature survey showed that the depth of burial relative to the height of the plant determined whether the growth of a species was stimulated by burial. Growth stimulation was limited to shallow burial depths, while burial depths greater than the height of the plant consistently resulted in reduced growth. As studies used widely differing burial depths or units of growth measurement, the variation in reported stimulation of plant growth can be partly attributed to differences in experimental procedure. The stimulation of growth in many species was accompanied by an increase in photosynthesis over a limited period and by a shift in biomass allocation from root to shoot. Most plants demonstrated stimulated growth (up to 200%) in response to shallow burial indicating that some burial response mechanisms are general to many species. However, a few specialist dune species displayed a much greater ability to respond to burial (up to 700% stimulation of plant mass). Although allocation shifts and increased photosynthesis have been shown to be associated with dune plant burial response, there remains a need for field measurements that focus on the diversity of mechanisms underlying plant response to burial.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>maun</json:string><json:string>photosynthetic</json:string><json:string>unburied</json:string><json:string>biomass</json:string><json:string>sykes</json:string><json:string>dune</json:string><json:string>photosynthetic rate</json:string><json:string>ammophila</json:string><json:string>enhancement</json:string><json:string>ecol</json:string><json:string>breviligulata</json:string><json:string>photosynthesis</json:string><json:string>sand burial</json:string><json:string>burial responses</json:string><json:string>perumal</json:string><json:string>unburied treatment</json:string><json:string>yuan</json:string><json:string>seedling</json:string><json:string>burial depths</json:string><json:string>zhang</json:string><json:string>ammophila breviligulata</json:string><json:string>authors journal compilation</json:string><json:string>ecological society</json:string><json:string>total plant mass</json:string><json:string>burial response</json:string><json:string>ecology</json:string><json:string>sykes wilson</json:string><json:string>lapierre</json:string><json:string>burial</json:string><json:string>photosynthetic rates</json:string><json:string>plant mass</json:string><json:string>literature survey</json:string><json:string>unburied treatments</json:string><json:string>mass fraction</json:string><json:string>growth response</json:string><json:string>laboratory studies</json:string><json:string>plant height</json:string><json:string>experimental burial</json:string><json:string>australia synthesis</json:string><json:string>growth responses</json:string><json:string>maun perumal</json:string><json:string>dune plants</json:string><json:string>maun lapierre</json:string><json:string>perumal maun</json:string><json:string>chamaecrista chamaecristoides</json:string><json:string>nutrient limitation</json:string><json:string>biomass allocation</json:string><json:string>greenhouse</json:string><json:string>unburied plants</json:string><json:string>desert environments</json:string><json:string>burial height</json:string><json:string>experimental procedure</json:string><json:string>dech maun</json:string><json:string>reproductive tissue</json:string><json:string>many species</json:string><json:string>ammophila species</json:string><json:string>experimental procedures</json:string><json:string>mass production</json:string><json:string>little maun</json:string><json:string>experimental conditions</json:string><json:string>literature analysis</json:string><json:string>cakile edentula</json:string><json:string>rhodes university</json:string><json:string>lower burial depths</json:string><json:string>time courses</json:string><json:string>plant species</json:string><json:string>harris davy</json:string><json:string>total mass accumulation</json:string><json:string>laboratory experiments</json:string><json:string>dune species</json:string><json:string>largest enhancements</json:string><json:string>many studies</json:string><json:string>single points</json:string><json:string>plant growth</json:string><json:string>gilbert ripley</json:string><json:string>unburied treatment value</json:string><json:string>plant burial response</json:string><json:string>more studies</json:string><json:string>more work</json:string><json:string>salt spray</json:string><json:string>burial depth</json:string><json:string>allocation shifts</json:string><json:string>photosynthesis data</json:string><json:string>clonal integration</json:string><json:string>total mass</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>MATTHEW E. GILBERT</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>BRAD S. RIPLEY</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>biomass allocation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>burial</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>photosynthesis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>root to shoot ratio</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>sand dune</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>AEC2011</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-XNKXJW5T-D</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Burial is one of the major factors influencing plant ecology in deserts and coastal areas. Consequently, many studies have measured the responses of dune plants to sand burial. However, there remains little agreement about the mechanisms and characteristics constituting the burial response of plants. In particular, stimulation of growth has been reported as the most common plant burial response; however, stimulation has not been reported consistently among studies. Here, a literature survey showed that the depth of burial relative to the height of the plant determined whether the growth of a species was stimulated by burial. Growth stimulation was limited to shallow burial depths, while burial depths greater than the height of the plant consistently resulted in reduced growth. As studies used widely differing burial depths or units of growth measurement, the variation in reported stimulation of plant growth can be partly attributed to differences in experimental procedure. The stimulation of growth in many species was accompanied by an increase in photosynthesis over a limited period and by a shift in biomass allocation from root to shoot. Most plants demonstrated stimulated growth (up to 200%) in response to shallow burial indicating that some burial response mechanisms are general to many species. However, a few specialist dune species displayed a much greater ability to respond to burial (up to 700% stimulation of plant mass). Although allocation shifts and increased photosynthesis have been shown to be associated with dune plant burial response, there remains a need for field measurements that focus on the diversity of mechanisms underlying plant response to burial.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.262</score><pdfWordCount>4262</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>26364</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 779.528 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>259</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1698</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Austral Ecology</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1442-9993</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1442-9985</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1442-9993</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>AEC</json:string></publisherId><volume>35</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>53</first><last>59</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2009</json:string><json:string>2010</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Australia SYNTHESIS OF PLANT BURIAL RESPONSE</json:string><json:string>National Research Foundation Prestigious Doctoral</json:string><json:string>Rhodes University Joint Research Council</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Society</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Australia</json:string><json:string>South Africa</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Martinez and Moreno-Casasola (1996)</json:string><json:string>Gilbert et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>Gilbert & Ripley 2008</json:string><json:string>Shi et al. (2004)</json:string><json:string>Rust & Illenberger 1996</json:string><json:string>Brown 1997</json:string><json:string>Maun & Lapierre 1984</json:string><json:string>Zhang 1996</json:string><json:string>Dech & Maun 2006</json:string><json:string>Yuan et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Hesp & McLachlan 2000</json:string><json:string>Hesp 2002</json:string><json:string>Yu et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Kent et al. 2001</json:string><json:string>Zheng et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Maun 1998</json:string><json:string>Martinez & Moreno-Casasola 1996</json:string><json:string>Shi et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Maze & Whalley 1992</json:string><json:string>Maun & Perumal 1999</json:string><json:string>Disraeli 1984</json:string><json:string>Zhang & Maun 1992</json:string><json:string>Sykes and Wilson (1990)</json:string><json:string>Kent et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Cabaco & Santos 2007</json:string><json:string>Maun and Perumal (1999)</json:string><json:string>Tsoar 2005</json:string><json:string>Sykes & Wilson 1990</json:string><json:string>Gilbert et al. (2008)</json:string><json:string>Zheng et al. (2005)</json:string><json:string>Williams et al. 1986</json:string><json:string>Gurevitch et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Yuan et al. (1993)</json:string><json:string>Perumal & Maun 2006</json:string><json:string>Cheplick and Grandstaff (1997)</json:string><json:string>Perumal and Maun (2006)</json:string><json:string>Perumal and Maun 2006</json:string><json:string>Maun and Lapierre (1984)</json:string><json:string>Marba & Duarte 1994</json:string><json:string>Harris & Davy 1988</json:string><json:string>Yu et al. 2004</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-XNKXJW5T-D</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - ecology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - natural sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - biology</json:string><json:string>3 - ecology</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Physical Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Environmental Science</json:string><json:string>3 - Ecology</json:string><json:string>1 - Life Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Agricultural and Biological Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences biologiques fondamentales et appliquees. psychologie</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02011.x</json:string></doi><id>03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><pubPlace>Melbourne, Australia</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Ecological Society of Australia</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2010-02"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title><title level="a" type="short">SYNTHESIS OF PLANT BURIAL RESPONSE</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">MATTHEW E.</forename><surname>GILBERT</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)<address><country key="ZA"></country></address></affiliation><email>matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com</email></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">BRAD S.</forename><surname>RIPLEY</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)<address><country key="ZA"></country></address></affiliation><email>matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com</email></author><idno type="istex">03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-XNKXJW5T-D</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02011.x</idno><idno type="unit">AEC2011</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:AEC.AEC2011.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Austral Ecology</title><title level="j" type="alt">AUSTRAL ECOLOGY</title><idno type="pISSN">1442-9985</idno><idno type="eISSN">1442-9993</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1442-9993</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/aec.2010.35.issue-1</idno><idno type="product">AEC</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">35</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="53">53</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="59">59</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><pubPlace>Melbourne, Australia</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2010-02"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p>Burial is one of the major factors influencing plant ecology in deserts and coastal areas. Consequently, many studies have measured the responses of dune plants to sand burial. However, there remains little agreement about the mechanisms and characteristics constituting the burial response of plants. In particular, stimulation of growth has been reported as the most common plant burial response; however, stimulation has not been reported consistently among studies. Here, a literature survey showed that the depth of burial relative to the height of the plant determined whether the growth of a species was stimulated by burial. Growth stimulation was limited to shallow burial depths, while burial depths greater than the height of the plant consistently resulted in reduced growth. As studies used widely differing burial depths or units of growth measurement, the variation in reported stimulation of plant growth can be partly attributed to differences in experimental procedure. The stimulation of growth in many species was accompanied by an increase in photosynthesis over a limited period and by a shift in biomass allocation from root to shoot. Most plants demonstrated stimulated growth (up to 200%) in response to shallow burial indicating that some burial response mechanisms are general to many species. However, a few specialist dune species displayed a much greater ability to respond to burial (up to 700% stimulation of plant mass). Although allocation shifts and increased photosynthesis have been shown to be associated with dune plant burial response, there remains a need for field measurements that focus on the diversity of mechanisms underlying plant response to burial.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">biomass allocation</term><term xml:id="k2">burial</term><term xml:id="k3">photosynthesis</term><term xml:id="k4">root to shoot ratio</term><term xml:id="k5">sand dune</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisherName><publisherLoc>Melbourne, Australia</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1442-9993</doi><issn type="print">1442-9985</issn><issn type="electronic">1442-9993</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="AEC"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="AUSTRAL ECOLOGY">Austral Ecology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="02001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/aec.2010.35.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="35">35</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2010-02">February 2010</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02011.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="AEC2011"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Ecological Society of Australia</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2009-07-13"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-01-21"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-01"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-15"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="53">53</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="59">59</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:AEC.AEC2011.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication March 2009.</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="2"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="2"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="34"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4725"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title><title type="shortAuthors">M. E. GILBERT AND B. S. RIPLEY</title><title type="short">SYNTHESIS OF PLANT BURIAL RESPONSE</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>MATTHEW E.</givenNames><familyName>GILBERT</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#aff-1-1"><personName><givenNames>BRAD S.</givenNames><familyName>RIPLEY</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="aff-1-1" countryCode="ZA"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: <email>matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com</email>)</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">biomass allocation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">burial</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">photosynthesis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">root to shoot ratio</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">sand dune</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>Burial is one of the major factors influencing plant ecology in deserts and coastal areas. Consequently, many studies have measured the responses of dune plants to sand burial. However, there remains little agreement about the mechanisms and characteristics constituting the burial response of plants. In particular, stimulation of growth has been reported as the most common plant burial response; however, stimulation has not been reported consistently among studies. Here, a literature survey showed that the depth of burial relative to the height of the plant determined whether the growth of a species was stimulated by burial. Growth stimulation was limited to shallow burial depths, while burial depths greater than the height of the plant consistently resulted in reduced growth. As studies used widely differing burial depths or units of growth measurement, the variation in reported stimulation of plant growth can be partly attributed to differences in experimental procedure. The stimulation of growth in many species was accompanied by an increase in photosynthesis over a limited period and by a shift in biomass allocation from root to shoot. Most plants demonstrated stimulated growth (up to 200%) in response to shallow burial indicating that some burial response mechanisms are general to many species. However, a few specialist dune species displayed a much greater ability to respond to burial (up to 700% stimulation of plant mass). Although allocation shifts and increased photosynthesis have been shown to be associated with dune plant burial response, there remains a need for field measurements that focus on the diversity of mechanisms underlying plant response to burial.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>SYNTHESIS OF PLANT BURIAL RESPONSE</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Resolving the differences in plant burial responses</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">MATTHEW E.</namePart><namePart type="family">GILBERT</namePart><affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">BRAD S.</namePart><namePart type="family">RIPLEY</namePart><affiliation>Department of Botany, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa (Email: matthewgilbertsa@gmail.com)</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Melbourne, Australia</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-02</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication March 2009.</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">2</extent><extent unit="tables">2</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">34</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">4725</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Burial is one of the major factors influencing plant ecology in deserts and coastal areas. Consequently, many studies have measured the responses of dune plants to sand burial. However, there remains little agreement about the mechanisms and characteristics constituting the burial response of plants. In particular, stimulation of growth has been reported as the most common plant burial response; however, stimulation has not been reported consistently among studies. Here, a literature survey showed that the depth of burial relative to the height of the plant determined whether the growth of a species was stimulated by burial. Growth stimulation was limited to shallow burial depths, while burial depths greater than the height of the plant consistently resulted in reduced growth. As studies used widely differing burial depths or units of growth measurement, the variation in reported stimulation of plant growth can be partly attributed to differences in experimental procedure. The stimulation of growth in many species was accompanied by an increase in photosynthesis over a limited period and by a shift in biomass allocation from root to shoot. Most plants demonstrated stimulated growth (up to 200%) in response to shallow burial indicating that some burial response mechanisms are general to many species. However, a few specialist dune species displayed a much greater ability to respond to burial (up to 700% stimulation of plant mass). Although allocation shifts and increased photosynthesis have been shown to be associated with dune plant burial response, there remains a need for field measurements that focus on the diversity of mechanisms underlying plant response to burial.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>biomass allocation</topic><topic>burial</topic><topic>photosynthesis</topic><topic>root to shoot ratio</topic><topic>sand dune</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Austral Ecology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1442-9985</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1442-9993</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1442-9993</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">AEC</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>35</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>53</start><end>59</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-XNKXJW5T-D</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02011.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">AEC2011</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Ecological Society of Australia</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Asia</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000180 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000180 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:03AE4E9F3EA0EC675C10F2055E00286D611682DF
|texte= Resolving the differences in plant burial responses
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |