The Dynamics of Foliage Distribution within a Forest Canopy

Kinerson, Russell S.; Higginbotham, K. O.; Chapman, Roger C.

doi:10.2307/2402026

Cited by 84 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Branch diameter, distance from the top of the tree, age and treatment were significant independent variables (R 2 = 0.86) used to predict the most recent cohort year foliage mass. Loblolly pine typically retains one annual cohort during the dormant season (Kinerson et al, 1974). The predictive equations were applied to each living branch on all 80 measured trees for each year branch measurements were collected (1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003) to estimate individual branch foliage mass.…”

Section: Estimation Of Foliage and Branch Wood Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual tree crown and stand development in Pinus taeda under different fertilization and irrigation regimes

Albaugh

Allen

Fox

2006

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Estimation Of Foliage and Branch Wood Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual tree crown and stand development in Pinus taeda under different fertilization and irrigation regimes

Albaugh

Allen

Fox

2006

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…and litterfall. At the loam site, LAI was estimated from LAI-2000 measurements in September and corrected for seasonality using the model of Kinerson et al (1974).…”

Section: Cavitation Resistance and Tracheid Anatomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of soil porosity on water use in Pinus taeda

Hacke¹,

Sperry²,

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed the hydraulic constraints imposed on water uptake from soils of different porosities in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) by comparing genetically related and even-aged plantations growing in loam versus sand soil. Water use was evaluated relative to the maximum transpiration rate (E ) allowed by the soil-leaf continuum. We expected that trees on both soils would approach E during drought. Trees in sand, however, should face greater drought limitation because of steeply declining hydraulic conductivity in sand at high soil water potential (Ψ ). Transport considerations suggest that trees in sand should have higher root to leaf area ratios (A:A ), less negative leaf xylem pressure (Ψ), and be more vulnerable to xylem cavitation than trees in loam. The A :A was greater in sand versus loam (9.8 vs 1.7, respectively). This adjustment maintained about 86% of the water extraction potential for both soils. Trees in sand were more deeply rooted (>1.9 m) than in loam (95% of roots <0.2 m), allowing them to shift water uptake to deeper layers during drought and avoid hydraulic failure. Midday Ψ was constant for days of high evaporative demand, but was less negative in sand (-1.6 MPa) versus loam (-2.1 MPa). Xylem was more vulnerable to cavitation in sand versus loam trees. Roots in both soils were more vulnerable than stems, and experienced the greatest predicted loss of conductivity during drought. Trees on both soils approached E during drought, but at much higher Ψ in sand (<-0.4 MPa) than in loam (<-1.0 MPa). Results suggest considerable phenotypic plasticity in water use traits for P. taeda which are adaptive to differences in soil porosity.

show abstract

“…A large number of process-level research investigations have similarly been conducted to understand the production ecology and ecophysiology of loblolly pine (e.g., Bormann, 1953;Brix, 1962;Kinerson et al, 1974;Teskey et al, 1987;Dalla-Tea and Jokela, 1994;Albaugh et al, 1998;Ellsworth, 2000;Samuelson et al, 2001;Will et al, 2001). Nevertheless, the impacts of intensive management practices on processes affecting stand development and productivity are still inadequately understood for this species because comprehensive experiments that span the range from establishment to maturity (e.g., pulpwood rotations) are limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%