4.7 Article

Importance of crown architecture for leaf area index of different Populus genotypes in a high-density plantation

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 1214-1226

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tps083

关键词

branching pattern; genotypic variation; syllepsis; volume index

类别

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme [233366]
  2. Flemish Hercules Foundation [ZW09-06]
  3. Flemish Methusalem Programme
  4. Research Council of the University of Antwerp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crown architecture is an important determinant of biomass production and yield of any bio-energy plantation since it determines leaf area display and hence light interception. Four Populus genotypes-of different species and hybrids and with contrasting productivity and leaf area-were examined in terms of their branch characteristics in relation to crown architecture during the first and second growing seasons after plantation establishment. The trees were planted at high density (8000 ha(-1)) on two different former land use types, cropland and pasture. We documented significant differences in branch architecture among the genotypes and for the first year among the former land use types. Land use effects only affected factors not related to canopy closure and wood production, and decreased after the first growing season. This suggested that both former land use types were equally suited for the establishment success of a poplar bio-energy plantation. Tree height and branch dimensions-branch diameter and branch length-were the most important determinants of wood production and maximum leaf area index. Despite the secondary importance of the number of sylleptic branches, these branches contributed significantly to the total leaf area in three out of the four studied genotypes. This indicated that enhanced syllepsis accelerates leaf area development and hence carbon assimilation, especially in the early stages of a high-density plantation with poplar.

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