Fine root biomass and morphology of <i>Pinus densiflora</i> under competitive stress by <i>Chamaecyparis obtusa</i>

Fujii, Saori; Kasuya, Nobuhiko

doi:10.1007/s10310-008-0063-y

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent debates have focused on whether growth or allocation plasticity is more dominant in response to abiotic stress (Chmura et al, 2017;Curt et al, 2005;Fujii & Kasuya, 2008;Kramer-Walter & Laughlin, 2017;Valladares et al, 2005). Previous studies showed that allocation traits vary little under biotic or abiotic stress (Curt et al, 2005;Kaelke, Kruger, & Reich, 2001;Reich et al, 1998).…”

Section: Growth Plasticity Versus Allocation Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic plasticity of four Chenopodiaceae species with contrasting saline–sodic tolerance in response to increased salinity–sodicity

Huang

Fan

Zhou

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is unknown whether phenotypic plasticity in fitness‐related traits is associated with salinity–sodicity tolerance. This study compared growth and allocation phenotypic plasticity in two species with low salinity–sodicity tolerance ( Chenopodium acuminatum and C. stenophyllum ) and two species with high salinity–sodicity tolerance ( Suaeda glauca and S. salsa ) in a pot experiment in the Songnen grassland, China. While the species with low tolerance had higher growth and allocation plasticity than the highly tolerant species, the highly tolerant species only adjusted their growth traits and maintained higher fitness (e.g., plant height and total biomass) in response to increased soil salinity–sodicity, with low biomass allocation plasticity. Most plasticity is “apparent” plasticity (ontogenetic change), and only a few traits, for example, plant height:stem diameter ratio and root:shoot biomass ratio, represent “real” plasticity (real change in response to the environment). Our results show that phenotypic plasticity was negatively correlated with saline–sodic tolerance and could be used as an index of species sensitivity to soil salinity–sodicity.

show abstract

Section: Growth Plasticity Versus Allocation Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic plasticity of four Chenopodiaceae species with contrasting saline–sodic tolerance in response to increased salinity–sodicity

Huang

Fan

Zhou

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trees that suffer from strong interspecific or intraspecific competition tend to have higher specific root length (SRL), and bigger specific root surface area or number of root tips per root length unit. Fujii and Kasuya (2008) found nearly double the value of specific fine root length of Pinus densiflora grown in an intensely competitive environment of dense Chamaecyparis obtusa, compared to environment with reduced competition. According to Bolte et al 2013, beech is able to raise significantly its SRL, while growing with spruce competitors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Underplanted silver fir and common beech cause changes in root stratification and morphology in mature spruce stands

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O Or ri ig gi in na al l r re es se ea ar rc ch h a ar rt ti ic cl le e R Re ev vi ie ew w a ar rt ti ic cl le e S Sh ho or rt t r re ep po or rt t www.plantroot.org 21 Jaloviar P, Kucbel S, Vencurik J, Kýpeťová M, Parobeková Z, Pittner J, Saniga M, Sedmáková D 2018 Underplanted silver fir and common beech cause changes in root stratification and morphology in mature spruce stands. Plant Root 12:21-30.Abstract: In this study we analysed changes in distribution and morphological properties of fine roots caused by underplanting of a 110-year-old Norway spruce monoculture by silver fir and common beech. Three different stand structures were investigated: mature spruce underplanted by beech (S/b), by fir (S/f) and mature spruce with natural regeneration of spruce (S/s). We established 3 sample plots per each structure and took 5 soil cores per sample plot (45 cores in total). Soil cylinders of 5 cm diameter were taken up to 40 cm depth. Fine roots (diameter ≤ 2 mm) were extracted from the soil, classified according to tree species, weighted and scanned; their length and surface were quantified and specific root length (SRL) and specific surface area (SSA) were calculated. Root-to-root interaction of spruce and underplanted species led to differences in vertical distribution of roots towards the more homogenous root density in investigated profile with clear shifting of beech and fir roots into deeper soil layers. Cumulative root fractions of fir and beech in upper 20 cm were lower than those of Norway spruce. The share of spruce roots in depth under 20 cm never exceeded 20%. The co-occurrence of beech and spruce in small spots was about twice as frequent as the co-occurrence of spruce with fir. We found differences in SRL and SSA between broadleaves (beech) and conifers, while the values of beech morphological parameters increased significantly, when mixed with spruce. We assume that the competitive strategy of beech is based in changing its root morphology, whereas silver fir is inclined to extend its biomass.

show abstract

“…In the case of L. glaber, the higher SRL and SRA values suggest higher nutrient absorption efficiency for this species when coexisting with P. massoniana in mixed forests. Given that L. glaber had a lower fine root biomass than P. massoniana in mixed species stands, it would seem that L. glaber fine roots may alter their individual morphologies, to compensate for their lower overall biomass (Fujii and Kasuya 2008). The lower SRL and SRA values observed for P. massoniana are probably attributable to the fact that coniferous species are to some extent dependent on ectomycorrhizal associations (Bauhus and Messier 1999) to facilitate assisting nutrient uptake.…”

Section: Fine Root Morphological Plasticity and Belowground Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…(Jacob et al 2013). Moreover, fine root morphological traits may also differ in mixed species forests relative to monocultures because trees that experience intense competition tend to show increased SRL and SRA values (Fitter 1991;Fujii and Kasuya 2008). For example, coniferous species in mixed stands showed much higher fine root length per unit stem basal area compared to monospecific neighbourhoods ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Despite their immobility, plants can detect and distinguish their neighbours and are capable of appropriately adjusting their nutrient exploitation strategy (Pregitzer et al 2002;de Kroon 2007). Plants can also acclimatize to diverse growing environments by altering fine root biomass allocation and morphology, especially when confronted with belowground competition for soil resources between multiple individuals (Bauhus and Messier 1999;Fujii and Kasuya 2008;Messier et al 2009). Plants tend to reach a position of trade-off between their exploration of soil space and their exploitation soil resources (Campbell et al 1991;Casper and Jackson 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fine root interactions in subtropical mixed forests in China depend on tree species composition

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Belowground interactions can greatly modify fine root (≤2 mm in diameter) traits to increase soil resource acquisition for tree growth. We examined how mixed forests alter fine root traits compared to pure forests. Methods A pseudo-experimental tree cluster design was used to select small-area plots of single and mixed species in a Pinus massoniana-Lithocarpus glaber (PM-LG) forest and a L. glaber-Cyclobalanopsis glauca (LG-CG) forest. In each plot, soil cores were sampled down to 30 cm at a 0.5 m interval between target and neighbouring trees. Fine roots in soil cores were then divided by species to determine biomass and morphological traits. Results The mixed PM-LG plots exhibited significantly higher fine root biomass while the mixed LG-CG plots had no significant differences in fine root biomass compared to their respective pure plots. In pure plots, P. massoniana had higher fine root biomass and lower specific root length (SRL) and specific root area (SRA) than L. glaber, whereas fine root traits were similar for L. glaber and C. glauca. Compared with pure plots for a given species, fine root biomass in the entire soil profile decreased for P. massoniana but increased for L. glaber in mixed PM-LG plots. In mixed LG-CG plots, fine root biomass decreased for each species at all soil depths. Conclusions Whether positive interactions of fine roots occur is dependent on tree species composition. Fine root biomass was greater in mixed forests where tree species showed contrasting growth strategies and root traits, such as PM-LG forests, thus suggesting positive interactions.

show abstract

Fine root biomass and morphology of Pinus densiflora under competitive stress by Chamaecyparis obtusa

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

Phenotypic plasticity of four Chenopodiaceae species with contrasting saline–sodic tolerance in response to increased salinity–sodicity

Phenotypic plasticity of four Chenopodiaceae species with contrasting saline–sodic tolerance in response to increased salinity–sodicity

Underplanted silver fir and common beech cause changes in root stratification and morphology in mature spruce stands

Fine root interactions in subtropical mixed forests in China depend on tree species composition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About