Cargando…

What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?

Alternative metrics exist for representing variation in plant body size, but the vast majority of previous research for herbaceous plants has focused on dry mass. Dry mass provides a reasonably accurate and easily measured estimate for comparing relative capacity to convert solar energy into stored...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tracey, Amanda J., Stephens, Kimberly A., Schamp, Brandon S., Aarssen, Lonnie W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28725402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2476
_version_ 1783250625391230976
author Tracey, Amanda J.
Stephens, Kimberly A.
Schamp, Brandon S.
Aarssen, Lonnie W.
author_facet Tracey, Amanda J.
Stephens, Kimberly A.
Schamp, Brandon S.
Aarssen, Lonnie W.
author_sort Tracey, Amanda J.
collection PubMed
description Alternative metrics exist for representing variation in plant body size, but the vast majority of previous research for herbaceous plants has focused on dry mass. Dry mass provides a reasonably accurate and easily measured estimate for comparing relative capacity to convert solar energy into stored carbon. However, from a “plant's eye view”, its experience of its local biotic environment of immediate neighbors (especially when crowded) may be more accurately represented by measures of “space occupancy” (S–O) recorded in situ—rather than dry mass measured after storage in a drying oven. This study investigated relationships between dry mass and alternative metrics of S–O body size for resident plants sampled from natural populations of herbaceous species found in Eastern Ontario. Plant height, maximum lateral canopy extent, and estimated canopy area and volume were recorded in situ (in the field)—and both fresh and dry mass were recorded in the laboratory—for 138 species ranging widely in body size and for 20 plants ranging widely in body size within each of 10 focal species. Dry mass and fresh mass were highly correlated (r (2) > .95) and isometric, suggesting that for some studies, between‐species (or between‐plant) variation in water content may be unimportant and fresh mass can therefore substitute for dry mass. However, several relationships between dry mass and other S–O body size metrics showed allometry—that is, plants with smaller S–O body size had disproportionately less dry mass. In other words, they have higher “body mass density” (BMD) — more dry mass per unit S–O body size. These results have practical importance for experimental design and methodology as well as implications for the interpretation of “reproductive economy”—the capacity to produce offspring at small body sizes—because fecundity and dry mass (produced in the same growing season) typically have a positive, isometric relationship. Accordingly, the allometry between dry mass and S–O body size reported here suggests that plants with smaller S–O body size—because of higher BMD—may produce fewer offspring, but less than proportionately so; in other words, they may produce more offspring per unit of body size space occupancy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5513261
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55132612017-07-19 What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”? Tracey, Amanda J. Stephens, Kimberly A. Schamp, Brandon S. Aarssen, Lonnie W. Ecol Evol Original Research Alternative metrics exist for representing variation in plant body size, but the vast majority of previous research for herbaceous plants has focused on dry mass. Dry mass provides a reasonably accurate and easily measured estimate for comparing relative capacity to convert solar energy into stored carbon. However, from a “plant's eye view”, its experience of its local biotic environment of immediate neighbors (especially when crowded) may be more accurately represented by measures of “space occupancy” (S–O) recorded in situ—rather than dry mass measured after storage in a drying oven. This study investigated relationships between dry mass and alternative metrics of S–O body size for resident plants sampled from natural populations of herbaceous species found in Eastern Ontario. Plant height, maximum lateral canopy extent, and estimated canopy area and volume were recorded in situ (in the field)—and both fresh and dry mass were recorded in the laboratory—for 138 species ranging widely in body size and for 20 plants ranging widely in body size within each of 10 focal species. Dry mass and fresh mass were highly correlated (r (2) > .95) and isometric, suggesting that for some studies, between‐species (or between‐plant) variation in water content may be unimportant and fresh mass can therefore substitute for dry mass. However, several relationships between dry mass and other S–O body size metrics showed allometry—that is, plants with smaller S–O body size had disproportionately less dry mass. In other words, they have higher “body mass density” (BMD) — more dry mass per unit S–O body size. These results have practical importance for experimental design and methodology as well as implications for the interpretation of “reproductive economy”—the capacity to produce offspring at small body sizes—because fecundity and dry mass (produced in the same growing season) typically have a positive, isometric relationship. Accordingly, the allometry between dry mass and S–O body size reported here suggests that plants with smaller S–O body size—because of higher BMD—may produce fewer offspring, but less than proportionately so; in other words, they may produce more offspring per unit of body size space occupancy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5513261/ /pubmed/28725402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2476 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Tracey, Amanda J.
Stephens, Kimberly A.
Schamp, Brandon S.
Aarssen, Lonnie W.
What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
title What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
title_full What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
title_fullStr What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
title_full_unstemmed What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
title_short What does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
title_sort what does body size mean, from the “plant's eye view”?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28725402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2476
work_keys_str_mv AT traceyamandaj whatdoesbodysizemeanfromtheplantseyeview
AT stephenskimberlya whatdoesbodysizemeanfromtheplantseyeview
AT schampbrandons whatdoesbodysizemeanfromtheplantseyeview
AT aarssenlonniew whatdoesbodysizemeanfromtheplantseyeview