4.6 Article

Size-dependent growth of two old-growth associated macrolichen species

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 181, 期 3, 页码 683-692

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02690.x

关键词

allometry; growth rate; lichens; Lobaria pulmonaria; thallus size; Usnea longissima

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [154442/720]
  2. FORMAS, Sweden [24.0795/97]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relationships between thallus size and growth variables were analysed for the foliose Lobaria pulmonaria and the pendulous Usnea longissima with the aim of elucidating their morphogenesis and the factors determining thallus area (A) versus biomass (dry weight (DW) gain. Size and growth data originated from a factorial transplantation experiment that included three boreal climate zones (Atlantic, suboceanic and continental), each with three successional forest stands (clear-cut, young and old). When A was replaced by the estimated photobiont layer area in an area-DW scatterplot including all thalli (n = 1080), the two separate species clusters merged into one, suggesting similar allocation patterns between photobionts and mycobionts across growth forms. During transplantation, stand-specific water availability boosted area gain in foliose transplants, consistent with a positive role of water in fungal expansion. In pendulous lichens, A gain greatly exceeded DW gain, particularly in small transplants. The A gain in U. longissima increased with increasing DW:A ratio, consistent with a reallocation of carbon, presumably mobilized from the dense central chord. Pendulous lichens with cylindrical photobiont layers harvest light from all sides. Rapid and flexible three-dimensional A gain allows the colonization of spaces between canopy branches to utilize temporary windows of light in a growing canopy. Foliose lichens with a two-dimensional photobiont layer have more coupled A and DW gains. New Phytologist (2009) 181: 683-692 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02690.x.

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

4.6
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