4.5 Article

Evidence of variant intra- and interspecific scaling of tree crown structure and relevance for allometric theory

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 169, 期 3, 页码 637-649

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-2240-5

关键词

Structural allometry; Euclidian geometry; Metabolic scaling theory; Fractal dimension; Self-thinning

类别

资金

  1. German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 607]
  2. Bavarian State Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Forestry [W 07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

General scaling rules or constants for metabolic and structural plant allometry as assumed by the theory of Euclidian geometric scaling (2/3-scaling) or metabolic scaling (3/4-scaling) may meet human's innate propensity for simplicity and generality of pattern and processes in nature. However, numerous empirical works show that variability of crown structure rather than constancy is essential for a tree's success in coping with crowding. In order to link theory and empiricism, we analyzed the intra- and inter-specific scaling of crown structure for 52 tree species. The basis is data from 84 long-term plots of temperate monospecific forests under survey since 1870 and a set of 126 yield tables of angiosperm and gymnosperm forest tree species across the world. The study draws attention to (1) the intra-specific variation and correlation of the three scaling relationships: tree height versus trunk diameter, crown cross-sectional area versus trunk diameter, and tree volume versus trunk diameter, and their dependence on competition, (2) the inter-specific variation and correlation of the same scaling exponents ( and ) across 52 tree species, and (3) the relevance of the revealed variable scaling of crown structure for leaf organs and metabolic scaling. Our results arrive at suggesting a more extended metabolic theory of ecology which includes variability and covariation between allometric relationships as prerequisite for the individual plant's competitiveness.

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

4.5
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