Allocation of above-ground growth is related to light in temperate deciduous saplings

By D. A. King. 2003

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2895bfefb7fe4739219183f5962d55707de8e18d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. D. Jacobs
2. U. Niinemets
3. C. Lusk

In Global and Planetary Change

1. U. Niinemets
2. D. Jacobs
3. C. Lusk
4. B. Lüpke
5. I. Petrițan
6. A. Petritan
7. F. Valladares
8. P. Grubb

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. U. Niinemets
2. I. Petrițan
3. A. Petritan
4. B. Lüpke
5. D. Jacobs
6. C. Lusk
7. F. Valladares
8. P. Grubb

Citations in the corpus

• Toward development of silvical strategies for forest restoration of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) using blight-resistant hybrids (2007, background): “American chestnut exhibits a strong, positive response to high light conditions as compared with co-occurring hardwood species (Boring et al., 1981; Griffin, 1989; Latham, 1992; King, 2003 ).”
• A review of light interception in plant stands from leaf to canopy in different plant functional types and in species with varying shade tolerance (2010, background): “Although plants tend to allocate more biomass into leaves under low light (e.g., King 2003; Portsmuth and Niinemets 2007), large support investments in low light to improve the efficiency of light harvesting (low degree of self-shading and efficient exposure of foliage) likely explain why FL is…”
• Leaf area and growth of juvenile temperate evergreens in low light: species of contrasting shade tolerance change rank during ontogeny (2004, background): “At least two studies have shown that ontogenetic trends in biomass allocation can differ among coexisting species (Naumburg et al . 2001; King 2003 ), although it is not known if such variation is systematically related to shade tolerance.”
• The controversy over traits conferring shade‐tolerance in trees: ontogenetic changes revisited (2006, background): “Some observations do show a lower M A in shade tolerators (Niinemets 1997; Beaudet & Messier 1998; Niinemets 1998; King 2003), consistent with the hypothesis, but other studies have observed a lower M A in intolerant species (Kitajima 1994; Walters & Reich 1996; Poorter 1999; Walters & Reich 2000;…”
• Influence of light availability on growth, leaf morphology and plant architecture of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), maple (Acer pseudoplatanus L.) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) saplings (2008, background): “Regarding the relationship between SLA and shade tolerance, some investigations (Chen et al. 1996; Niinemets and Kull 1998; King 2003; Barthod and Epron 2005; Kunstler et al. 2005; Bonosi 2006; Klooster et al. 2007) found that the higher the shade tolerance rank of the species, the more pronounced…”