2020
DOI: 10.1111/geb.13212
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Grow wider canopies or thicker stems: Variable response of woody plants to increasing dryness

Abstract: Aim: Woody plants vary greatly from tall trees to branching shrubs with increasing dryness. Variation in plant allometry is driven by both biotic and abiotic factors, reflecting different plant adaptation strategies in different environments. Here, we explore how aboveground allometry of different woody plants responds to increasing dryness along an extensive aridity gradient. Location: Eastern Australia.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
(87 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Seidel et al, 2021)-despite the fact that our data are from an environment with significant abiotic variation that may create more intraspecific structural variation. Water limitation may affect tree structure by limiting height (Fajardo et al, 2019) and altering crown dimensions (Ding et al, 2020;Lines et al, 2012), leading to greater intraspecific variability across our plot network. The high topographic variability of our study area also means wind exposure varies between plots, inducing changes to tree structure (Watt et al, 2005), irrespective of drought conditions (Niez et al, 2019) programme (Horn, 1971;Pugnaire & Valladares, 2007), and studies in plantation forests (Zou et al, 2017) and with monospecific plots (Xi et al, 2020) are unlikely to exhibit the same structural convergence due to this lack of extrinsic stresses (MacFarlane & Kane, 2017;Martin-Ducup et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seidel et al, 2021)-despite the fact that our data are from an environment with significant abiotic variation that may create more intraspecific structural variation. Water limitation may affect tree structure by limiting height (Fajardo et al, 2019) and altering crown dimensions (Ding et al, 2020;Lines et al, 2012), leading to greater intraspecific variability across our plot network. The high topographic variability of our study area also means wind exposure varies between plots, inducing changes to tree structure (Watt et al, 2005), irrespective of drought conditions (Niez et al, 2019) programme (Horn, 1971;Pugnaire & Valladares, 2007), and studies in plantation forests (Zou et al, 2017) and with monospecific plots (Xi et al, 2020) are unlikely to exhibit the same structural convergence due to this lack of extrinsic stresses (MacFarlane & Kane, 2017;Martin-Ducup et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, consideration of environmental factors is of great importance in understanding the state, stability, and ecological role of forest stands [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. It is especially important for protection and restoration of forest ecosystems [64][65][66] as well as in their management [67][68][69].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The climate variability in arid and semi‐arid regions is apparent, and there are different climate states over a wide range. This method of ‘space for time’ provides a good platform for simulating how plant communities respond to climate change and has been widely used in global studies (Ding et al, 2021). We used different precipitation use efficiencies to indicate the predicted dryness under climate change and the RMSD to represent the trade‐offs between aboveground and belowground biomass.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%