4.6 Article

Are trees able to grow in periods of stem shrinkage?

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 211, 期 3, 页码 839-849

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13995

关键词

bark shrinkage; cambial activity; point dendrometer; stem diameter variations; tree ring; tree water relations; TreeNet; wood growth

资金

  1. Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PDAMP3 127227]
  3. COST Switzerland (COST SBF) [C10.0101]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PDAMP3_127227] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Separating continuously measured stem radius (SR) fluctuations into growth-induced irreversible stem expansion (GRO) and tree water deficit-induced reversible stem shrinkage (TWD) requires a conceptualization of potential growth processes that may occur during periods of shrinking and expanding SR below a precedent maximum. Here, we investigated two physiological concepts: the linear growth (LG) concept, assuming linear growth, versus the zero growth (ZG) concept, assuming no growth during periods of stem shrinkage. We evaluated the physiological mechanisms underlying these two concepts and assessed their respective plausibilities using SR data obtained from 15 deciduous and evergreen trees. The application of the LG concept produced steady growth rates, whereas growth rates varied strongly under the ZG concept, more in accordance with mechanistic expectations. Further, growth increased for a maximum of 120min after periods of stem shrinkage, indicating limited growth activity during those periods. However, this extra growth was found to be a small fraction of total growth only. Furthermore, TWD under the ZG concept was better explained by a hydraulic plant model than TWD under the LG concept. We conclude that periods of stem shrinkage allow for very little growth in the four tree species investigated. However, further studies should focus on obtaining independent growth data to ultimately validate these findings.

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