GROWTH, ALLOCATION, AND MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF BETULA-PUBESCENS AND BETULA-PENDULA TO SHADE IN DEVELOPING SCOTS PINE STANDS

Citation
C. Messier et P. Puttonen, GROWTH, ALLOCATION, AND MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF BETULA-PUBESCENS AND BETULA-PENDULA TO SHADE IN DEVELOPING SCOTS PINE STANDS, Canadian journal of forest research, 25(4), 1995, pp. 629-637
Citations number
52
Categorie Soggetti
Forestry
ISSN journal
00455067
Volume
25
Issue
4
Year of publication
1995
Pages
629 - 637
Database
ISI
SICI code
0045-5067(1995)25:4<629:GAAMRO>2.0.ZU;2-U
Abstract
The growth, biomass allocation, crown architecture, and leaf morpholog y of 50 to 200 cm tail Betula pubescens Ehrh. and Betula pendula Roth seedlings growing under eight Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands varying in age from 7 to 105 years were studied in southern Finland. T he main objective of the study was to assess the degree of morphologic al plasticity of birch in response to understory conditions in stands of varying structure. In each of these stands, the light, water, and n utrient availability were measured. No clear trend in nutrient and wat er availability was found from the 7- to 105-year-old stands. Light av ailability decreased from the 7-year-old stands (45% and 82% of full s unlight in nongap and gap locations, respectively) to the 20-year-old stands (5% and 12% of full sunlight), and then increased to the mature stands (21% and 26% of full sunlight). Relative branch growth rate an d height increment decreased with increasing shade. The ratios of leaf area to branch length and to branch weight did not vary significantly among the eight stands. The ratios of height to diameter and fine-roo t biomass to leaf biomass were the highest under the most shaded stand s (20-year-old). Increase in shading decreased leaf thickness and incr eased specific leaf weight. No major differences were found in any of the growth parameters measured between the two birch species, indicati ng that they do not differ in their juvenile stage. These results indi cate that these two birch species have relatively little morphological plasticity in response to shade. They appear to be able to persist in shade by minimizing carbon demand for growth and by modifying leaf mo rphology to presumably optimize photosynthesis.