| Literature DB >> 34843472 |
Yoko Osone1, Shoji Hashimoto1, Tanaka Kenzo1,2.
Abstract
The effects of climate change on forest ecosystems take on increasing importance more than ever. Information on plant traits is a powerful predictor of ecosystem dynamics and functioning. We reviewed the major ecological traits, such as foliar gas exchange and nutrients, xylem morphology and drought tolerance, of Cryptomeria japonica and Chamaecyparis obtusa, which are major timber species in East Asia, especially in Japan, by using a recently developed functional trait database for both species (SugiHinokiDB). Empirically, C. obtusa has been planted under drier conditions, whereas C. japonica, which grows faster but thought to be less drought tolerant, has been planted under wetter conditions. Our analysis generally support the empirical knowledge: The maximum photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, foliar nutrient content and soil-to-foliage hydraulic conductance were higher in C. japonica than in C. obtusa. In contrast, the foliar turgor loss point and xylem pressure corresponding to 50% conductivity, which indicate drought tolerance, were lower in C. obtusa and are consistent with the drier habitat of C. obtusa. Ontogenetic shifts were also observed; as the age and height of the trees increased, foliar nutrient concentrations, foliar minimum midday water potential and specific leaf area decreased in C. japonica, suggesting that nutrient and water limitation occurs with the growth. In C. obtusa, the ontogenetic shits of these foliar traits were less pronounced. Among the Cupressaceae worldwide, the drought tolerance of C. obtusa, as well as C. japonica, was not as high. This may be related to the fact that the Japanese archipelago has historically not been subjected to strong dryness. The maximum photosynthetic rate showed intermediate values within the family, indicating that C. japonica and C. obtusa exhibit relatively high growth rates in the Cupressaceae family, and this is thought to be the reason why they have been selected as economically suitable timber species in Japanese forestry. This study clearly demonstrated that the plant trait database provides us a promising opportunity to verify out empirical knowledge of plantation management and helps us to understand effect of climate change on plantation forests by using trait-based modelling.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34843472 PMCID: PMC8629320 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
List of 108 major plant traits selected from the SugiHinoki DB.
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Trait | Unit | n | Mean | Range | n | Mean | Range |
| Photosynthesis | Maximum photosynthesis per foliage area (Amaxan, Amaxas) | μmol m-2 s-1 | 216 | 6.7 | 0.3–19.9 | 215 | 5.3 | 0.4–11.3 |
| Maximum photosynthesis rate per foliage dry mass | μmol kg-1 s-1 | 844 | 30.9 | 0.7–120.5 | 141 | 29.5 | 0.2–84.5 | |
| Maximum rate of electron transport per foliage area (Jmaxa) | μmol m-2 s-1 | 66 | 135.4 | 46.0–260.6 | 18 | 76.4 | 49.4–95.6 | |
| Maximum rate of electron transport per foliage dry mass | μmol kg-1 s-1 | 62 | 447.7 | 119.9–911.9 | 0 | — | ||
| Maximum rate of carboxylation per foliage area (Vcmaxa) | μmol m-2 s-1 | 228 | 59.2 | 20.3–139.1 | 34 | 31.1 | 14.7–51.1 | |
| Maximum rate of carboxylation per foliage dry mass | μmol kg-1 s-1 | 62 | 228.9 | 50.4–493.6 | 0 | — | ||
| Initial slope of light response curve | molCO2 mol[e]-1 | 48 | 0.030 | 0.016–0.074 | 33 | 0.050 | 0.020–0.-81 | |
| Convexity of light response curve | NA | 45 | 0.60 | 0.04–0.98 | 30 | 0.66 | 0.09–0.93 | |
| Light compensation point of photosynthesis | μmol[e] m-2 s-1 | 7 | 53.1 | 32.4–87.5 | 17 | 26.3 | 11.0–37.7 | |
| Mass content of chlorophyll per foliage dry mass | mg g-1 | 243 | 2.68 | 0.66–7.48 | 0 | — | ||
| Ratio of chlorophyll a to chlorophyll b. | NA | 45 | 2.43 | 1.59–3.69 | 42 | 2.61 | 2.34–2.99 | |
| Mass content of Rubisco per foliage dry mass | mg g-1 | 3 | 19.5 | 12.4–26.6 | 0 | — | ||
| Respiration | Leaf dark respiration rate per area | μmol m-2 s-1 | 128 | 0.76 | 0.07–2.76 | 223 | 0.65 | 0.02–3.10 |
| Leaf dark respiration rate per foliage dry mass | μmol kg-1 s-1 | 155 | 4.40 | 0.44–24.00 | 3 | 12.82 | 5.46–17.0 | |
| Day respiration rate per foliage area | μmol m-2 s-1 | 39 | 5.45 | 1.50–14.27 | 0 | — | ||
| Branch dark respiration rate per branch volume | μmol m-3 s-1 | 46 | 378 | 56–2051 | 26 | 274 | 21–1405 | |
| Stem dark respiration rate per stem surface area | μmol m-2 s-1 | 207 | 3.67 | 0.22–12.46 | 89 | 1.55 | 0.24–4.44 | |
| Root dark respiration rate per dry mass | μmol kg-1 s-1 | 26 | 4.57 | 2.52–7.32 | 23 | 6.10 | 2.80–9.75 | |
| Fineroot dark respiration rate per dry mass | μmol kg-1 s-1 | 0 | — | 107 | 8.51 | 3.80–16.0 | ||
| Q10 measured for foliage | NA | 0 | — | 30 | 2.43 | 1.87–3.65 | ||
| Q10 measured for stem | NA | 18 | 1.93 | 1.45–2.81 | 0 | — | ||
| Water relation | Stomatal conductance for CO2 per foliage area (gsan) | mol m-2 s-1 | 59 | 0.10 | 0.01–0.93 | 40 | 0.08 | 0.001–0.52 |
| Stomatal conductance for CO2 per foliage dry mass | mol kg-1 s-1 | 139 | 0.43 | 0.03–2.00 | 24 | 0.43 | 0.22–0.65 | |
| Transpiration rate per foliage area (Ean) | mmol m-2 s-1 | 76 | 1.08 | 0.03–3.30 | 95 | 2.77 | 0.11–17.0 | |
| Transpiration rate per foliage dry mass | mmol kg-1 s-1 | 395 | 12.1 | 0.10–102.1 | 207 | 6.19 | 0.01–41.7 | |
| Sap flow density/velocity measured by Granier method. | cm3 m-2 s-1 | 88 | 17.3 | 0.48–40.6 | 19 | 17.9 | 6.1–46.1 | |
| Sap frow density averaged for a day | cm3 m-2 s-1 | 29 | 8.4 | 3.0–20.0 | 24 | 11.4 | 4.0–19.4 | |
| Sap flow (or transpiration) per a tree per a day | kg d-1 | 112 | 9.4 | 0.7–22.9 | 176 | 12.6 | 1.1–67.2 | |
| Soil to leaf hydraulic conductance per foliage area (KS-L) | mmol m-2 s-1 Mpa-1 | 37 | 0.6 | 0.2–1.3 | 9 | 1.1 | 0.3–1.7 | |
| Soil to leaf hydlauric resistance per foliage mass | Mpa kg s mmol-1 | 64 | 1.2 | 0.1–5.8 | 60 | 1.2 | 0.0–10.1 | |
| Stem (sapwood) specific conductivity (Kstem) | kg m-1 s-1 MPa-1 | 18 | 1.0 | 0.4–2.2 | 9 | 1.3 | 0.3–2.3 | |
| Predawn foliage water potential (Ψpd) | MPa | 51 | -0.45 | -2.14- -0.02 | 132 | -0.63 | -2.28- -0.01 | |
| Midday foliage water potential (Ψmd) | MPa | 370 | -1.03 | -2.30- -0.05 | 189 | -1.29 | -2.49- -0.28 | |
| Osmotic potential at water saturation (Ψπsat) | MPa | 258 | -1.60 | -2.70- -0.70 | 93 | -1.27 | -2.38- -0.11 | |
| Leaf water potential at turgor loss point (Ψtlp) | MPa | 262 | -2.31 | -3.55- -1.31 | 161 | -2.33 | -4.09- -0.91 | |
| Water content at turgor loss point (RWCtlp) | g g-1 | 101 | 0.76 | 0.65–0.86 | 93 | 0.68 | 0.53–0.81 | |
| Bulk elastic modulus (ℇ) | MPa | 101 | 7.4 | 1.7–15.1 | 53 | 4.4 | 0.6–10.7 | |
| Branch water potential at 50% conductivity loss (Ψ50) | MPa | 2 | -4.8 | -5.2- -4.4 | 2 | -6.7 | -7.6- -5.8 | |
| Root water potential at 50% conductivity loss | MPa | 1 | -4.1 | -4.1- -4.1 | 2 | -3.1 | -4.3- -2.0 | |
| Water use efficiency | mg g-1 | 8 | 4.9 | 3.6–5.4 | 8 | 5.2 | 4.2–6.6 | |
| 13C:12C ratio in leaves | ‰ | 74 | -27.4 | -30.1- -24.7 | 44 | -26.8 | -28.5- -24.6 | |
| Leaf morphology | Specific leafe area (SLA) | m2 kg-1 | 379 | 4.9 | 1.5–16.9 | 244 | 5.8 | 3.2–15.7 |
| Shoot silhouette area to projected needle area ratio (SPAR) | NA | 39 | 0.6 | 0.5–0.7 | 0 | — | ||
| Root morphology | Specific root length | m g-1 | 132 | 13.3 | 0.2–48.4 | 196 | 14.8 | 0.3–46.2 |
| Specific root surface area | cm2 mg-1 | 44 | 0.16 | 0.03–0.37 | 3 | 0.19 | 0.03–0.43 | |
| Anatomy | Number of stomata per foliage area | mm-2 | 173 | 127.9 | 11.9–19.9 | 7 | 635.3 | 500–830 |
| Width of stomata | μm | 3 | 65.8 | 31.2–342.0 | 2 | 20.7 | 19.9–21.5 | |
| Length of stomata | μm | 21 | 47.9 | 28.0–85.3 | 2 | 28.2 | 27.4–29.0 | |
| Cross sectional area of foliage xylem | μm2 | 43 | 1639 | 1048–111.9 | 33 | 434 | 213–1104 | |
| Cross sectional area of foliage transfusion cell | μm2 | 46 | 9369 | 3522–16917 | 34 | 367 | 43–1082 | |
| Tracheid length of early wood | mm | 8 | 2.4 | 1.3–3.0 | 99 | 2.3 | 0.9–3.6 | |
| Tracheid length of late wood | mm | 495 | 2.4 | 0.8–4.5 | 7 | 2.8 | 1.8–3.8 | |
| Tracheid diameter (tangent) of early wood | μm | 47 | 28.2 | 21.6–37.0 | 3 | 24.0 | 21.0–26.0 | |
| Tracheid diameter (radial) of early wood | μm | 56 | 35.2 | 24.9–51.6 | 3 | 27.0 | 24.0–29.0 | |
| Tracheid diameter (tangent) of late wood | μm | 32 | 25.5 | 19.8–30.1 | 3 | 19.0 | 16.0–22.0 | |
| Tracheid diameter (radial) of late wood | μm | 56 | 15.0 | 9.0–24.9 | 3 | 14.7 | 13.0–16.0 | |
| Wood density | Basic density of stem | g cm3 | 640 | 0.35 | 0.13–0.59 | 44 | 0.41 | 0.38–0.50 |
| Basic density of branch | g cm3 | 31 | 0.32 | 0.06–0.65 | 0 | — | ||
| Basic density of root | g cm3 | 4 | 0.42 | 0.39–0.45 | 4 | 0.46 | 0.40–0.50 | |
| Basic density of fine root | g cm3 | 44 | 0.28 | 0.17–0.33 | 105 | 0.29 | 0.17–0.80 | |
| Resource use | Nitrogen resorption efficiency of leaves | % | 3 | 23.1 | 5.5–49.1 | 19 | 39.4 | 23.4–56.4 |
| N content of foliage litter fall | mg g-1 | 6 | 7.8 | 6.4–8.3 | 52 | 7.8 | 4.3–11.3 | |
| 15N:14N ratio in leaves | ‰ | 4 | 2.0 | -4.9–9.0 | 4 | 2.3 | -6.4–10.3 | |
| Leaf longevity | year | 24 | 4.7 | 2.9–10.4 | 47 | 4.6 | 1.9–8.3 | |
| Fineroot longevity | year | 1 | 4.1 | 4.1–4.1 | 7 | 2.3 | 1.3–5.3 | |
| Nitrogen content | Nitrogen content per foliage area (Na, Ns) | g m-2 | 381 | 3.91 | 0.97–12.6 | 112 | 2.54 | 0.77–4.11 |
| Nitrogen content per foliage dry mass (Nm) | mg g-1 | 2116 | 13.8 | 4.50–44.3 | 759 | 14.1 | 6.74–32.4 | |
| Nitrogen content per stem dry mass | mg g-1 | 163 | 5.03 | 0.30–16.2 | 32 | 8.08 | 0.40–15.5 | |
| Nitrogen content per root dry mass | mg g-1 | 152 | 7.84 | 0.50–27.5 | 41 | 11.9 | 4.90–18.6 | |
| Nitrogen content per thick root (>20mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 28 | 1.64 | 0.30–3.20 | 4 | 1.23 | 0.20–2.40 | |
| Nitrogen content per thin root (<20mm, >2mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 28 | 3.40 | 0.60–5.10 | 4 | 3.60 | 3.00–4.30 | |
| Nitrogen content per fine root (<2mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 63 | 9.78 | 2.90–18.2 | 107 | 10.4 | 0.92–17.0 | |
| Phosphorous content | Phosphorus content per foliage dry mass (Pm) | mg g-1 | 692 | 1.52 | 0.51–8.90 | 357 | 1.58 | 0.40–8.10 |
| Phosphorus content per stem dry mass | mg g-1 | 163 | 0.51 | 0.04–3.52 | 32 | 0.47 | 0.08–1.10 | |
| Phosphorus content per root dry mass | mg g-1 | 145 | 0.85 | 0.13–7.28 | 34 | 1.22 | 0.57–2.79 | |
| Phosphorus content of thick root (>20mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 28 | 0.32 | 0.13–0.70 | 4 | 0.39 | 0.17–0.65 | |
| Phosphorus content of thin root (<20mm, >2mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 28 | 0.37 | 0.17–0.74 | 4 | 0.26 | 0.17–0.49 | |
| Phosphorus content of fine root (<2mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 26 | 0.55 | 0.26–1.35 | 4 | 0.60 | 0.31–0.79 | |
| Pottasium content | Pottasium content per foliage mass (Km) | mg g-1 | 722 | 8.10 | 1.77–37.2 | 354 | 7.96 | 2.31–36.4 |
| Pottasium content per stem dry mass | mg g-1 | 163 | 3.05 | 0.17–12.2 | 32 | 4.15 | 0.58–7.05 | |
| Pottasium content per root dry mass | mg g-1 | 157 | 3.71 | 0.17–16.8 | 34 | 4.09 | 1.41–14.8 | |
| Pottasium content per thick root (>20mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 28 | 1.22 | 0.66–2.49 | 4 | 1.02 | 0.83–1.16 | |
| Pottasium content per thin root (<20mm, >2mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 28 | 1.87 | 1.08–2.57 | 4 | 1.49 | 1.41–1.74 | |
| Pottasium content per fine root (<2mm) dry mass | mg g-1 | 26 | 2.20 | 1.08–4.31 | 4 | 2.05 | 1.33–2.82 | |
| Chemical composition | Lignin content of foliage | % | 3 | 25.9 | 23.6–28.3 | 4 | 24.4 | 23.6–25.6 |
| Lignin content of foliage litter fall | % | 2 | 34.8 | 30.2–39.4 | 1 | 27.3 | 27.3–27.3 | |
| Lignin content of deadwood | % | 69 | 33.5 | 30.2–40.6 | 67 | 31.3 | 28.4–38.1 | |
| Holocellulose content of foliage | % | 3 | 48.1 | 47.4–48.9 | 4 | 51.6 | 50.7–53.9 | |
| Holocellulose content of foliage litter fall | % | 2 | 46.5 | 45.5–47.5 | 1 | 42.4 | 42.4–42.4 | |
| Holocellulose content of deadwood | % | 69 | 63.5 | 55.0–68.1 | 67 | 65.6 | 57.7–69.0 | |
| Nitrogen content of deadwood | g kg-1 | 69 | 0.87 | 0.22–4.46 | 67 | 0.55 | 0.10–2.12 | |
| Carbon content of deadwood | g kg-1 | 69 | 514 | 483–537 | 67 | 522 | 498–547 | |
| Biomass | Leaf biomass (LM) | kg | 150 | 4.1 | 0.001–57.1 | 77 | 4.82 | 0.090–22.2 |
| Stem+branch biomass | kg | 150 | 30.3 | 0.00003–477.2 | 77 | 43.3 | 1.65–208.4 | |
| Branch biomass | kg | 72 | 6.15 | 0.0003–39.0 | 77 | 4.79 | 0.111–23.2 | |
| Root biomass (RM) | kg | 195 | 7.15 | 0.00004–146.4 | 100 | 9.48 | 0.00002–67.8 | |
| Thick root biomass (>20mm) | kg | 29 | 25.3 | 0.83–138.9 | 16 | 15.9 | 2.18–59.5 | |
| Thin root biomass (<20mm, >2mm) | kg | 29 | 3.26 | 0.46–6.00 | 16 | 3.47 | 1.15–6.79 | |
| Fine root biomass (<2mm) | kg | 39 | 0.46 | 0.0008–1.54 | 16 | 0.68 | 0.20–1.47 | |
| Allocation | Annual allocation of net primary production to foliage | t ha-1 y-1 | 94 | 4.78 | 1.70–7.70 | 22 | 3.77 | 2.80–5.35 |
| Annual allocation of net primary production to stem + branch | t ha-1 y-1 | 94 | 9.60 | 2.10–28.6 | 22 | 9.85 | 6.40–13.6 | |
| Annual allocation of net primary production to branch | t ha-1 y-1 | 80 | 1.82 | 0.36–5.10 | 21 | 2.03 | 0.60–2.80 | |
| Annual allocation of net primary production to root | t ha-1 y-1 | 94 | 2.68 | 0.53–7.38 | 22 | 2.84 | 1.70–3.90 | |
| Annual foliage litterfall | t ha-1 y-1 | 46 | 3.61 | 0.93–6.64 | 130 | 3.16 | 0.83–5.96 | |
| Annual branch + bark litterfall | t ha-1 y-1 | 26 | 0.83 | 0.09–3.70 | 83 | 0.69 | 0.02–7.04 | |
| Stand characteristics | Leaf area index (LAI) | NA | 16 | 0.20 | 2.07–17.2 | 62 | 7.00 | 2.03–12.4 |
| LAI-based light absorption coefficient (k) | NA | 6 | 0.85 | 0.26–0.46 | 1 | 0.97 | 0.97–0.97 | |
| Leaf mass-based Light absorption coefficient | NA | 2 | 0.26 | 0.25–0.27 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.24–0.27 | |
Data number, means and ranges were calculated before outliers were removed for the following analyses.
Fig 1Photographs of Cryptomeria japonica (top) and Chamaecyparis obtusa (bottom). The right side is an example of the foliar projected area. Note that the projected area is underestimated in C. japonica because the foliage of C. japonica has a complex three-dimensional structure.
Fig 2Photosynthetic properties of Cryptomeria japonica and Chamaecyparis obtusa.
In C. japonica, each trait is presented on a shoot silhouette area basis and projected needle area basis. Each shoot or needle-based trait for C. japonica was compared with the scale traits for C. obtusa by t-test; ***, P < 0.001; ns, not significant.
Fig 3Specific leaf area and leaf longevity of Cryptomeria japonica and Chamaecyparis obtusa.
Differences between C. japonica and C. obtusa were tested by a t-test; ns, not significant.
Fig 4Organ biomass in relation to DBH (a, c, e) and total mass (b, d, f). Differences in regressions between species were tested by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, [69]). There were significant interspecific differences between leaf biomass and DBH or total biomass (P < 0.0001) and stem biomass and total biomass (P < 0.05), though the other relations were similar between species (P > 0.05).
Fig 5Leaf traits related to water relation of C. japonica and C. obtusa.
In C. japonica, each trait is presented on a shoot silhouette area basis and projected needle area basis. Differences between species were determined by a t-test; ***, P<0.001; *, P<0.05.
Fig 6Seasonal changes in pressure volume parameters and midday leaf water potential.
The effects of the independent variables (species, sampling month, and their interaction as fixed effects) on the dependent variables (each pressure-volume parameter) were evaluated using a linear mixed model [69]. Type III tests were performed for fixed effects (Wald-type test). Significant interspecific differences were on Ψtlp and Ψmd (P < 0.0001, Type III test, Table 2). Effect of the month was also significant for all tested pressure-volume parameters (P < 0.0001, Type III test, Table 2). Asterisk in the figure indicates significant differences between species in each month (ANOVA, *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; ns, not significant). The bars indicate standard division.
Results of type III test for seasonal changes in pressure volume parameters and midday leaf water potential.
| Ψtlp | Ψπsat | Ψmid | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Species | 288 | 88.8 | <0.0001 | 221 | 0.1 | ns | 282 | 19.4 | <0.0001 |
| Month | 288 | 51.4 | <0.0001 | 221 | 15.4 | <0.0001 | 282 | 11.9 | <0.0001 |
| Species × Month | 288 | 4.9 | <0.0001 | 221 | 2.4 | <0.01 | 282 | 0.3 | ns |
ns means not significant (P>0.05).
Fig 7Relationship between pressure-volume parameters.
Data measured from May-Oct and Nov-Apr were pooled. Filled triangle, C. japonica in May-Oct; Filled circle, C. japonica in Nov-Apr; Open triangle, C. obtusa in May-Oct; Open circle, C. obtusa in Nov-Apr. Regression lines are shown where they are significant (P < 0.05).
Fig 8Stem hydraulics and xylem anatomy.
Differences between the species were examined by t-test; ***, P < 0.001; **, P < 0.01; *, P < 0.05; ns, not significant.
Fig 9Changes in leaf nutrient contents with tree age.
Data from plants grown under experimental conditions or in pots were excluded. Data from plants younger than 100 years old are shown. Regression lines are shown where they are significant (P < 0.05).
Fig 10Changes in leaf nutrient contents with tree height.
Data from plants grown under experimental conditions or in pots were excluded. Regression lines are shown where they are significant (P < 0.05).
Fig 11Changes in midday leaf water potential (Ψmd) and SLA with tree age.
Data from plants grown under experimental conditions or in pots were excluded. Data from plants younger than 100 years old are shown. Regression lines are shown where they are significant (P < 0.05).
Fig 12Changes in midday foliage water potential (Ψmd) and SLA with tree height.
Data from plants grown under experimental conditions or in pots were excluded. Regression lines are shown where they are significant (P < 0.05).
Fig 13Relationship between leaf and stem hydraulic properties in Cupressaceae species.
Abbreviations of species names are shown in Table 3. Species in bold type with an asterisk are from this study. Regression lines are shown where they are significant (P < 0.05).
Species name and abbreviations used in Fig 13.
| Species | Abbr. | Phenology, native habitat |
|---|---|---|
|
| AL | E, Montane forests, Tasmania |
|
| AC | E, The Andes, Chile and Argentina |
|
| CM | E, Mesic-dry forests, eastern Australia |
|
| CD | E, Montane forests, United States–Mexican Pacific Coast |
|
| CL | E, Mixed forests, Oregon to northern California |
| CO* | E, Mixed evergreen forests, Japan and Taiwan | |
|
| CJ | E, Mixed evergreen forests, Japan |
| CJ* | E, Mixed evergreen forests, Japan | |
|
| CL | E, Mixed broad-leaved forests of southeast Asia |
|
| CF | E, Chaparral, southern California, northern Mexico |
|
| FC | E, Evergreen rainforest, Chile |
|
| GP | D, Riparian, southern China |
|
| JC | E, Desert, southern California to northern Mexico |
|
| LP | E, Mixed conifer rainforests, New Zealand |
|
| MG | D, Mesic mixed forests, central China |
|
| SC | E, Temperate moist forests, Japan |
|
| SS | E, northern coastal California |
|
| SG | E, Sierra Nevada, California |
|
| TC | E, Cool temperate forests, Asia |
|
| TD | D, Riparian regions in southeastern United States |
|
| TM | D, Southern Texas, Mexico, Central America |
|
| TB | E, Broadly distributed across Europe |
|
| TP | E, Mixed coniferous forests, United States Pacific northwest |
|
| TO | E, Coastal and montane Japan |
|
| WC | E, Fynbos, South Africa |
Data of Cryptomeria japonica and Chamaecyparis obtusa are from this study, and other data are from Pittermann et al. 2012.
‘E’ represents for evergreen and ‘D’ represents for deciduous.