4.7 Article

Plant size, not age, regulates growth and gas exchange in grafted Scots pine trees

Journal

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 71-79

Publisher

HERON PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/27.1.71

Keywords

aging; Caledonian pine; crown size; hydraulic limitation; leaf-level adjustment; leaf specific conductance; Pinus sylvestris

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied the effect of scion donor-tree age on the physiology and growth of 6- to 7-year-old grafted Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) trees (4 and 5 years after grafting). Physiological measurements included photosynthethetic rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration, whole plant hydraulic conductance, needle nitrogen concentration and carbon isotope composition. Growth measurements included total and component biomasses, relative growth rates and growth efficiency. Scion donor trees ranged in age from 36 to 269 years at the time of grafting. Hydraulic conductance was measured gravimetrically, applying the Ohm's law analogy, and directly, with a high-pressure flow meter. We found no effect of scion donor-tree age on any of the variables measured. There was, however, great variation within scion donor-tree age groups, which was related to the size of the grafted trees. Differences in size may have been caused by variable initial grafting success, but there was no indication that grafting success and age were related. At the stem level, hydraulic conductance scaled with total leaf area so that total conductance per unit leaf area did not vary with crown size. However, leaf specific hydraulic conductance (gravimetric), transpiration, photosynthesis and stomatal conductance declined with increasing total tree leaf area and needle width. We hypothesize that needle width is inversely related to mesophyll conductance. We conclude that canopy and needle size and not scion donor-tree age determined gas exchange in our grafted trees.

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