Literature DB >> 29882168

To spend or to save? Assessing energetic growth-storage tradeoffs in native and invasive woody plants.

Elise D Hinman1, Jason D Fridley2.   

Abstract

Many non-native woody plants invade low-light forest understories but differ from native species in leaf phenology and seasonality of photosynthesis. It is unknown whether such differences in assimilation patterns are due to contrasting strategies of energy allocation. In a group of native and invasive species in Eastern North America, we hypothesized that invaders employ a grow-first strategy, prioritizing allocation to new structural biomass over carbon storage compared to native congeners. We also hypothesized that species producing a single spring leaf flush exhibit a more conservative carbon storage strategy than species with continuous leaf production. We measured sugar and starch concentrations (non-structural carbohydrates; NSCs) in spring and fall in the stems and roots of 39 species of native and non-native shrubs in a common garden, and compared these to patterns of leaf production across species. Native species had higher soluble sugar concentrations than invaders, but invaders tended to store more root starch in spring. We found no difference in leaf production between natives and invaders. Determinate species had more soluble sugars than indeterminate species but had lower root starch. We found no relationship between aboveground productivity and carbon storage. Our results suggest that closely related species with contrasting evolutionary histories have different carbon storage strategies, although not necessarily in relation to their growth potential. The higher soluble sugar concentrations of native species may reflect their evolutionary response to historical disturbances, or different interactions with soil microbes, while increased spring root starch in invaders may support fine root or fruit production.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carbon allocation; Invasions; Nonstructural carbohydrates; Seasonal; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29882168     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-018-4177-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  29 in total

1.  Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness.

Authors:  Mark van Kleunen; Wayne Dawson; Daniel Schlaepfer; Jonathan M Jeschke; Markus Fischer
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 9.492

2.  More of the same? In situ leaf and root decomposition rates do not vary between 80 native and nonnative deciduous forest species.

Authors:  Insu Jo; Jason D Fridley; Douglas A Frank
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 10.151

3.  Resource-use efficiency and plant invasion in low-resource systems.

Authors:  Jennifer L Funk; Peter M Vitousek
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Nonstructural carbon in woody plants.

Authors:  Michael C Dietze; Anna Sala; Mariah S Carbone; Claudia I Czimczik; Joshua A Mantooth; Andrew D Richardson; Rodrigo Vargas
Journal:  Annu Rev Plant Biol       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 26.379

5.  Spring predictability explains different leaf-out strategies in the woody floras of North America, Europe and East Asia.

Authors:  Constantin M Zohner; Blas M Benito; Jason D Fridley; Jens-Christian Svenning; Susanne S Renner
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 9.492

6.  Stress differentially causes roots of tree seedlings to exude carbon.

Authors:  Justine Karst; Jacob Gaster; Erin Wiley; Simon M Landhäusser
Journal:  Tree Physiol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 4.196

7.  A method for routine measurements of total sugar and starch content in woody plant tissues.

Authors:  Pak S Chow; Simon M Landhäusser
Journal:  Tree Physiol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.196

8.  Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty.

Authors:  Pierre de Villemereuil; Jessie A Wells; Robert D Edwards; Simon P Blomberg
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Of Asian forests and European fields: Eastern U.S. plant invasions in a global floristic context.

Authors:  Jason D Fridley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Links between belowground and aboveground resource-related traits reveal species growth strategies that promote invasive advantages.

Authors:  Maria S Smith; Jason D Fridley; Marc Goebel; Taryn L Bauerle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Shade is the most important factor limiting growth of a woody range expander.

Authors:  David Ward
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Introduced Populations of an Invasive Tree Have Higher Soluble Sugars but Lower Starch and Cellulose.

Authors:  Wenrao Li; Luwei Wang; Baoliang Tian; Jianqing Ding; Evan Siemann
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 5.753

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.