Axial changes in wood functional traits have limited net effects on stem biomass increment in European beech (Fagus sylvatica).
Fagus sylvatica
carbon allocation
climate
forest productivity
quantitative wood anatomy
tree rings
wood density
Journal
Tree physiology
ISSN: 1758-4469
Titre abrégé: Tree Physiol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100955338
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 04 2020
08 04 2020
Historique:
received:
16
06
2019
revised:
31
12
2019
accepted:
16
01
2020
pubmed:
8
2
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
entrez:
8
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
During the growing season, trees allocate photoassimilates to increase their aboveground woody biomass in the stem (ABIstem). This 'carbon allocation' to structural growth is a dynamic process influenced by internal and external (e.g., climatic) drivers. While radial variability in wood formation and its resulting structure have been intensively studied, their variability along tree stems and subsequent impacts on ABIstem remain poorly understood. We collected wood cores from mature trees within a fixed plot in a well-studied temperate Fagus sylvatica L. forest. For a subset of trees, we performed regular interval sampling along the stem to elucidate axial variability in ring width (RW) and wood density (ρ), and the resulting effects on tree- and plot-level ABIstem. Moreover, we measured wood anatomical traits to understand the anatomical basis of ρ and the coupling between changes in RW and ρ during drought. We found no significant axial variability in ρ because an increase in the vessel-to-fiber ratio with smaller RW compensated for vessel tapering towards the apex. By contrast, temporal variability in RW varied significantly along the stem axis, depending on the growing conditions. Drought caused a more severe growth decrease, and wetter summers caused a disproportionate growth increase at the stem base compared with the top. Discarding this axial variability resulted in a significant overestimation of tree-level ABIstem in wetter and cooler summers, but this bias was reduced to ~2% when scaling ABIstem to the plot level. These results suggest that F. sylvatica prioritizes structural carbon sinks close to the canopy when conditions are unfavorable. The different axial variability in RW and ρ thereby indicates some independence of the processes that drive volume growth and wood structure along the stem. This refines our knowledge of carbon allocation dynamics in temperate diffuse-porous species and contributes to reducing uncertainties in determining forest carbon fixation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32031220
pii: 5728677
doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpaa002
pmc: PMC7182063
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
498-510Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
New Phytol. 2014 Mar;201(4):1289-303
pubmed: 24206564
Front Plant Sci. 2016 May 26;7:734
pubmed: 27303426
C R Acad Sci III. 1999 Aug;322(8):633-50
pubmed: 10505236
Trends Plant Sci. 2015 Jun;20(6):335-43
pubmed: 25911419
Plant Cell Environ. 2010 Oct;33(10):1721-30
pubmed: 20525004
New Phytol. 2013 Sep;199(4):981-90
pubmed: 23734960
Tree Physiol. 2019 Feb 1;39(2):275-283
pubmed: 30371898
Glob Chang Biol. 2015 May;21(5):2040-54
pubmed: 25482401
Tree Physiol. 2017 Jul 1;37(7):976-983
pubmed: 28379577
Tree Physiol. 2014 Jan;34(1):1-4
pubmed: 24463392
Am J Bot. 2010 Mar;97(3):519-24
pubmed: 21622413
Ecol Lett. 2009 Apr;12(4):351-66
pubmed: 19243406
J Theor Biol. 1965 Mar;8(2):264-75
pubmed: 5876240
Ecol Lett. 2014 Aug;17(8):988-97
pubmed: 24847972
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jun 19;115(25):6506-6511
pubmed: 29784790
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Jun 03;7:781
pubmed: 27375641
New Phytol. 2017 Nov;216(3):728-740
pubmed: 28636081
Science. 2017 Jan 13;355(6321):130-131
pubmed: 28082545
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 Mar;26(3):1474-1484
pubmed: 31560157
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2014;65:667-87
pubmed: 24274032
Int J Plant Sci. 1993;154(1):10-21
pubmed: 11537965
New Phytol. 2006;169(2):279-90
pubmed: 16411931
Ann Bot. 2011 Sep;108(3):429-38
pubmed: 21816842
Tree Physiol. 2012 Jan;32(1):14-23
pubmed: 22094578
New Phytol. 2019 Jan;221(2):652-668
pubmed: 30339280
Tree Physiol. 2015 Dec;35(12):1378-87
pubmed: 26377871
Glob Chang Biol. 2015 Jul;21(7):2749-2761
pubmed: 25626673
New Phytol. 2013 Dec;200(4):1176-86
pubmed: 23902539
Tree Physiol. 2010 Mar;30(3):335-45
pubmed: 20067911
J Exp Bot. 2012 Jan;63(2):837-45
pubmed: 22016427
Nat Plants. 2015 Oct 26;1:15160
pubmed: 27251531
Tree Physiol. 2005 Jun;25(6):651-60
pubmed: 15805085
Tree Physiol. 2018 Aug 1;38(8):1088-1097
pubmed: 29920598
J Exp Bot. 2010 May;61(8):2083-99
pubmed: 20176887
New Phytol. 2017 Apr;214(1):180-193
pubmed: 27883190
Science. 2011 Aug 19;333(6045):988-93
pubmed: 21764754
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Apr;42(4):1222-1232
pubmed: 30326549
Trends Plant Sci. 2018 Nov;23(11):1006-1015
pubmed: 30209023