Cargando…
Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest
In forested ecosystems, shrubs must succeed in persisting in low‐light environments, while simultaneously having the ability to rapidly expand and occupy newly created canopy openings, yet little is known about the traits that make this possible. We hypothesize that shrub species that are abundant i...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10694385/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10774 |
_version_ | 1785153365185921024 |
---|---|
author | Markgraf, Rudiger Doyon, Frédérik Delagrange, Sylvain Kneeshaw, Daniel |
author_facet | Markgraf, Rudiger Doyon, Frédérik Delagrange, Sylvain Kneeshaw, Daniel |
author_sort | Markgraf, Rudiger |
collection | PubMed |
description | In forested ecosystems, shrubs must succeed in persisting in low‐light environments, while simultaneously having the ability to rapidly expand and occupy newly created canopy openings, yet little is known about the traits that make this possible. We hypothesize that shrub species that are abundant in the understory exhibit a specific set of functional traits that define their ability to persist during unfavorable periods and to rapidly exploit newly created habitats. We tested this by comparing field‐measured functional traits such as biomass allocation, leaf display, crown morphology, and leaf traits, across individual size classes and two gap‐forest environments of five shrub species. We observed significant differences in traits between species, size classes, and gap‐forest environments. These differences were primarily related to biomass allocation traits, followed by leaf display, crown morphology, and leaf traits. Abundant shrubs like mountain maple (Acer spicatum) and hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) invested significantly more biomass in roots, had a larger total leaf area, and displayed leaves in a more efficient manner to intercept light. The high investment in root biomass can be interpreted as shrubs exploiting the persistence and colonization strategy through resprouting. Permanent sub‐canopy status likely explains the importance of efficient leaf display, wherein abundant shrubs had a large leaf area with minimal support structures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10694385 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106943852023-12-05 Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest Markgraf, Rudiger Doyon, Frédérik Delagrange, Sylvain Kneeshaw, Daniel Ecol Evol Research Articles In forested ecosystems, shrubs must succeed in persisting in low‐light environments, while simultaneously having the ability to rapidly expand and occupy newly created canopy openings, yet little is known about the traits that make this possible. We hypothesize that shrub species that are abundant in the understory exhibit a specific set of functional traits that define their ability to persist during unfavorable periods and to rapidly exploit newly created habitats. We tested this by comparing field‐measured functional traits such as biomass allocation, leaf display, crown morphology, and leaf traits, across individual size classes and two gap‐forest environments of five shrub species. We observed significant differences in traits between species, size classes, and gap‐forest environments. These differences were primarily related to biomass allocation traits, followed by leaf display, crown morphology, and leaf traits. Abundant shrubs like mountain maple (Acer spicatum) and hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) invested significantly more biomass in roots, had a larger total leaf area, and displayed leaves in a more efficient manner to intercept light. The high investment in root biomass can be interpreted as shrubs exploiting the persistence and colonization strategy through resprouting. Permanent sub‐canopy status likely explains the importance of efficient leaf display, wherein abundant shrubs had a large leaf area with minimal support structures. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10694385/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10774 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Markgraf, Rudiger Doyon, Frédérik Delagrange, Sylvain Kneeshaw, Daniel Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
title | Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
title_full | Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
title_fullStr | Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
title_short | Biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
title_sort | biomass allocation and plant morphology explain the difference in shrub species abundance in a temperate forest |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10694385/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10774 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT markgrafrudiger biomassallocationandplantmorphologyexplainthedifferenceinshrubspeciesabundanceinatemperateforest AT doyonfrederik biomassallocationandplantmorphologyexplainthedifferenceinshrubspeciesabundanceinatemperateforest AT delagrangesylvain biomassallocationandplantmorphologyexplainthedifferenceinshrubspeciesabundanceinatemperateforest AT kneeshawdaniel biomassallocationandplantmorphologyexplainthedifferenceinshrubspeciesabundanceinatemperateforest |