4.4 Article

Optimal allocation patterns and optimal seed mass of a perennial plant

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 354, 期 -, 页码 12-24

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.03.023

关键词

Optimal phenology; Size number trade-off; Biomass partitioning

资金

  1. Jagiellonian University [DS/WBiNoZ/INoS 757/13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a novel optimal allocation model for perennial plants, in which assimilates are not allocated directly to vegetative or reproductive parts but instead go first to a storage compartment from where they are then optimally redistributed. We do not restrict Considerations purely to periods favourable for photosynthesis, as it was done in published models of perennial species, but analyse the whole life period of a perennial plant. As a result, we obtain the general scheme of perennial plant development, for which annual and monocarpic strategies are special cases. We not only re-derive predictions from several previous optimal allocation models, but also obtain more information about plants' strategies during transitions between favourable and unfavourable seasons. One of the model's predictions is that a plant can begin to re-establish vegetative tissues from storage some time before the beginning of favourable conditions, which in turn allows for better production potential when conditions become better. By means of numerical examples we show that annual plants with single or multiple reproduction periods, monocarps, evergreen perennials and polycarpic perennials can be studied successfully with the help of our unified model. Finally, we build a bridge between optimal allocation models and models describing trade-offs between size and the number of seeds: a modelled plant can control the distribution of not only allocated carbohydrates but also seed size. We provide sufficient conditions for the optimality of producing the smallest and largest seeds possible. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据