Why do Pinus species have different growth dominance patterns than Eucalyptus species? A hypothesis based on differential physiological plasticity

Leaf area and light use efficiency patterns of Norway spruce under different thinning regimes and age classes

“…Similar patterns have been observed when stem growth was examined as a function of LA (e.g. O’Hara, 1988; Seymour and Kenefic, 2002; Fernández et al 2011 ), but exceptions have also been reported (e.g. Maguire et al., 1998; Reid et al, 2004; Fernández and Gyenge, 2009 ).…”

Influence of growth dominance and individual tree growth efficiency on Pinus taeda stand growth. A contribution to the debate about why stands productivity declines

“…However, the magnitude and pattern of growth dominance have been different between species (Binkley et al, 2006;Fernández and Gyenge, 2009;Fernández et al, 2011). In addition, once growth dominance has been established in Eucalyptus spp.…”

Do increasing respiratory costs explain the decline with age of forest growth rate?

“…Binkley et al (2002) introduced the idea that this low level of light use efficiency could be considered part of the decline with age of NPP since maintenance respiration must continue as long as the trees stay alive. A number of studies have found light use efficiency reduced or respiration rates increased amongst smaller trees in the stand (Binkley et al 2013;O'Grady et al 2010;Fernández et al 2011;Tschieder et al 2012;Campoe et al 2013;Gspaltl et al 2013;Ex and Smith 2014;Gyenge and Fernández 2014). Ferrio et al (2018) studied growth, water use and respiration rates using the whole tree chamber methods of Mori et al (2010) (discussed in the second section of Supplementary Appendix A) of young (7-10 years old) Japanese cedar trees that were in the second phase of the Binkley et al model, growing in very dense stands (60,000 stems ha -1 ) so that the competitive interactions between taller and shorter trees would have been intense.…”