4.7 Article

The cost of stress resistance: construction and maintenance costs of leaves and roots in two populations of Quercus ilex

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 11, 页码 1721-1728

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/28.11.1721

关键词

evergreen leaves; growth respiration; maintenance respiration; Mediterranean species; respiration-nitrogen relationships; root respiration; sclerophylly

类别

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [REN2003-09509-CO2-O2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested whether growth and maintenance costs of plant organs vary with environmental stress. Quercus ilex L. seedlings from acorns collected from natural populations in the northern Iberian Peninsula and in a lower elevation and putatively less stressful habitat in the southern Iberian Peninsula were grown in pots under the same conditions. Growth and maintenance respiration were measured by CO, exchange. Young leaves from 5-month-old seedlings of both populations had similar mean specific leaf areas, nitrogen and carbon concentrations and specific growth rates, and almost identical growth costs (1.26 a glucose g(-1)). Leaf maintenance cost was higher in northern than in the Southern Population (27.3 versus 22.4 mg glucose g(-1) day(-1), P < 0.01). In both populations, leaf maintenance cost decreased by 90% as leaves aged, but even in mature leaves, the maintenance cost was higher in the northern population than in the southern population (3.38 versus 2.53 mg glucose g(-1) day(-1), P < 0.01). The growth costs of fine roots < 1 mm in diameter were similar in the two Populations (1.20 g glucose g(-1)), whereas fine root maintenance cost was higher in the northern population than in the southern population (9.86 versus 7.45 mg glucose g(-1) day(-1); P < 0.05). The results Suggest that the cost of organ maintenance is related to the severity of environmental stress in the native habitat. Because the observed differences in both leaves and roots were constitutive, the two Populations may be considered ecotypes.

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

4.7
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