4.7 Article

Allometric relations for biomass partitioning of Nothofagus antarctica trees of different crown classes over a site quality gradient

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 259, 期 6, 页码 1118-1126

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.025

关键词

Allometry; Nothofagus; Biomass allocation; Biomass partitioning

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Data on tree biomass are essential for understanding the forest carbon cycle and plant adaptations to the environment. We determined biomass accumulation and allometric relationships in the partitioning of biomass between aboveground woody biomass, leaves and roots in Nothofagus antarctica. We measured above- and belowground biomass of N. antarctica trees across different ages (5-220 years) and crown classes (dominant, codominant, intermediate and suppressed) in three site qualities. The biomass allocation patterns were studied by fitting allometric functions in biomass partitioning between leaves (M-L), stem and branches (M-S) and roots (M-R). These patterns were tested for all pooled data and according to site quality and crown classes. Biomass accumulation varied with crown class and site quality. The root component represented 26-72% of the total biomass depending on age and site. N. antarctica scaling exponents for the relationships M-L vs. M-S, M-A vs. M-R, and M-S vs. M-R were close to those predicted by the allometric biomass partitioning model. However, when biomass allocation was analyzed by site quality the scaling exponents varied following the optimal partitioning theory which states that plants should allocate more biomass to the part of the plant that acquires the most limiting resource. In contrast, the crown class effect on biomass partitioning was almost negligible. In conclusion, to obtain accurate estimations of biomass in N. antarctica trees the allometric approach appears as an useful tool but the site quality should be taken into consideration. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据