4.5 Article

ALLOMETRY AND STILT ROOT STRUCTURE OF THE NEOTROPICAL PALM EUTERPE PRECATORIA (ARECACEAE) ACROSS SITES AND SUCCESSIONAL STAGES

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 97, 期 3, 页码 388-394

出版社

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0900149

关键词

allometry; Arecaceae; Costa Rica; Euterpe precatoria; mechanical stability; palm growth; stilt root structure; tree architecture

资金

  1. Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS)
  2. Directorate of Research of the University of Costa Rica [111-A3-129]
  3. School for Field Studies
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [851933] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of secondary meristems shapes allometric relationships of the palms, influencing species segregation according to their capacity to adjust form and function to spatial and temporal changes in environmental conditions. We examined the stem height vs. diameter allometry of Euterpe precatoria across environmental gradients and measured how terrain inclination and palm size affected stilt root structure at two sites in Costa Rica. We dissected the root cone into eight variables and used principal component analysis to summarize their correlation structure. The fit of the stem diameter-height relationship to the stress, elastic, and geometric similarity models was examined using data from 438 palms. Terrain inclination did not affect stilt roots, whose structure was determined by palm size. Palms under 1 m showed geometric similarity, whereas palms above 1 m had slope values that were one and a half times higher, independent of successional stage, and did not adjust to any mechanical model. Taller palms departed from these models when they were large because they had stilt root support. We conclude that height in E. precatoria is constrained by structural support at the base and that diameter at the base of the stem and stilt roots balances height increments over all the size ranges examined.

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