4.7 Article

Effects of stand age and tree species on canopy transpiration and average stomatal conductance of boreal forests

Journal

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 660-678

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01312.x

Keywords

chronosequence; fire; hydraulic conductance; leaf water potential; sapwood-to-leaf area ratio; tree height

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We quantified the effect of stand age and tree species composition on canopy transpiration (E-C) by analysing transpiration per unit leaf area (E-L) and canopy stomatal conductance (G(S)) for boreal trees comprising a five stand wildfire chronosequence. A total of 196 sap flux sensors were used on 90 trees consisting of Betula papyrifera Marsh (paper birch; present in the youngest stand), Populus tremuloides Michx (quaking aspen), Pinus banksiana Lamb. (jack pine), and Picea mariana (Mill.) (black spruce). While fine roots were positively correlated with stand E-C; leaf area index, basal area, and sapwood area were not. Stands less than 70 years old were dominated by Populus tremuloides and Pinus banksiana and stands greater than 70 years old were composed almost entirely of Picea mariana. As Populus tremuloides and Pinus banksiana increased in size and age, they displayed an increasing sapwood to leaf area ratio (A(S) : A(L)), a constant minimum leaf water potential (Psi(L)), and a constant proportionality between G(S) at low vapour pressure deficit (Dj G(Sref)) and the sensitivity of G(S) to D (-delta). In contrast, A(S) : A(L), minimum Psi(L), and the proportionally between -delta and G(Sref) decreased with height and age in Picea mariana. A G(S) model that included the effects of D, A(S) : A(L), tree height, and for Picea mariana an increasing soil to leaf water potential gradient with stand age, was able to capture the effects of contrasting hydraulic properties of Picea mariana, Populus tremuloides and Pinus banksiana during stand development after wildfire.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available