4.6 Article

Trait ecology of startup plants

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 235, 期 3, 页码 842-847

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.18193

关键词

epicormic growth; plant ecological strategies; regeneration strategy; resprout; sapling; seedling; startup; trait ecology

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SCHR 1672/1-1]
  2. Australian Research Council [FT160100113]
  3. Australian Research Council [FT160100113] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the trait differences between startup plants and adult plants, and proposes some testable questions based on theoretical concepts. By analyzing leaf mass per area (LMA), it is found that startup plants should have lower construction costs than established plants, and LMA should increase progressively with height or total leaf area. It is of great significance for studying theoretical and field-tested knowledge about plant startups.
Startup plants include seedlings and basal and epicormic resprouts. It has long been held that startups have different strategies from adult plants, but theory for what trait differences to expect is limited and not yet quantitatively tested. Three applicable concepts are analogy to human startup firms, R-shift, and trait-growth theory. All three suggest startups should be built with lower construction costs than established plants. This appears to be almost always true in terms of leaf mass per area (LMA), though many comparisons are complicated by the startups growing in lower light. Trait-growth theory predicts LMA should increase progressively with height or total leaf area, driven by higher conductive-pathway costs associated with each unit leaf area, and by greater reward from slowing leaf turnover. Basal resprouts often have somewhat higher LMA than seedlings, but possibly this is simply because they are larger. A number of eminently testable questions are identified. Prospects are good for a theoretically cogent and field-tested body of knowledge about plant startups.

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