2014
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1184
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Allometric scaling relationship between above‐ and below‐ground biomass within and across five woody seedlings

Abstract: Allometric biomass allocation theory predicts that leaf biomass (ML) scaled isometrically with stem (MS) and root (MR) biomass, and thus above-ground biomass (leaf and stem) (MA) and root (MR) scaled nearly isometrically with below-ground biomass (root) for tree seedlings across a wide diversity of taxa. Furthermore, prior studies also imply that scaling constant should vary with species. However, litter is known about whether such invariant isometric scaling exponents hold for intraspecific biomass allocation… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The slope values for relationships between LM and SM or RM obtained with our data at age 2 years were very close to those obtained by Poorter et al (2015) for the similar range of plant sizes, by Niklas (2004) based on a dataset for small-sized herbaceous and juvenile woody plants, and by Cheng et al (2014) for seedlings of five tree species. This indicates that in tree seedlings that accumulated little secondary tissues the slope values for those relationships are close to those obtained in our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The slope values for relationships between LM and SM or RM obtained with our data at age 2 years were very close to those obtained by Poorter et al (2015) for the similar range of plant sizes, by Niklas (2004) based on a dataset for small-sized herbaceous and juvenile woody plants, and by Cheng et al (2014) for seedlings of five tree species. This indicates that in tree seedlings that accumulated little secondary tissues the slope values for those relationships are close to those obtained in our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…However, the observed genetic variation in biomass allocation patterns in various tree species (Oleksyn et al 1992;Oleksyn et al 1999;Retzlaff et al 2001;Chmura et al 2007;Aranda et al 2010;Sanchez-Gomez et al 2010;Chmura et al 2013;Cheng et al 2014) implies that variation in allometry may also exist at the intra-species level. Comparing half-sib families or any other genetic groups using allometric relationships may reveal genetic effects on plant growth and biomass partitioning.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the numerical values of the normalization constants are species‐specific (Fig. 1; Tables 1, 2) as reported for other species (e.g., Niklas and Enquist, 2002; Milla and Reich, 2007; Cheng et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…Thus, the intraspecific tendency for “diminishing returns” is strong, but not obligate. Indeed, previous studies indicate that scaling relationships are sensitive to climate, soil, and a variety of other abiotic factors (e.g., Niklas and Enquist, 2002; Price and Enquist, 2007; von Allmen et al, 2012; Sperry et al, 2012), as well as plant functional groupings (e.g., Niklas et al, 2007; Cheng et al, 2014). These findings indicate that the hypothesis of diminishing returns must be examined in terms of the behavior of single individual species and species growing under different environmental conditions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover allometric biomass allocation theory predicts that leaf biomass (ML) scaled isometrically with stem (MS) and root (MR) biomass, and thus above-ground biomass (leaf and stem) (MA) and root (MR) scaled nearly isometrically with below-ground biomass (root) for tree seedlings across a wide diversity of taxa. Furthermore, prior studies also imply that scaling constant should vary with species (Cheng et al, 2014). This presents interesting challenges when trying to estimate the total aboveground biomass, or by components when needed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%