4.7 Article

Competitive status influences tree-growth responses to elevated CO2 and O3 in aggrading aspen stands

Journal

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 792-801

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00683.x

Keywords

competitive interactions; FACE; global change; Populus tremuloides

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

1. Competition effects on growth of individual trees were examined for 4 years in aggrading, mixed-clone stands of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) at the Aspen-FACE free-air CO2 and O-3 enrichment facility in northern Wisconsin, USA. During each growing season stands received one of four combinations of atmospheric [CO2] (ambient vs similar to56 Pa) and [O-3] (ambient vs similar to1.5 x ambient). 2. Non-destructive measurements of annual tree growth were compared within and among clones and treatments in relation to an index of competitive status based on the difference between a tree's height and that of its four nearest neighbours. Competitive status strongly influenced tree growth, and the positive growth response to elevated [CO2] was greater for competitively advantaged individuals than for disadvantaged individuals of most clones. 3. The magnitude of O-3 effects on growth depended on clone and competitive status: for some clones, negative O-3 effects were stronger with competitive advantage while others showed stronger O-3 effects with competitive disadvantage. The interactive effects of CO2 and O-3 differed among clones, with negative effects of O-3 amplified or ameliorated by elevated CO2 , depending on clone and competitive status. 4. Treatments modified competitive interactions by affecting the magnitude of growth differences among clones. These modifications did not alter clone rankings of competitive performance, but when CO2 and O-3 were both elevated, the differences in competitive performance among clones decreased.

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