Physiological responses to light explain competition and facilitation in a tree diversity experiment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Ecologists often invoke interspecific facilitation to help explain positive biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships in plant communities, but seldom test how it occurs. One mechanism through which one species may facilitate another is by ameliorating abiotic stress. Physiological experiments show that a chronic excess of light can cause stress that depresses carbon assimilation. If shading by a plant's neighbours reduces light stress enough, it may facilitate that plant's growth. If light is instead most often a limiting factor for photosynthesis, shading may have an adverse, competitive effect. In a temperate tree diversity experiment, we measured stem growth rates and photosynthetic physiology in broadleaf trees across a gradient of light availability imposed by their neighbours. At the extremes, trees experienced nearly full sun (monoculture), or were shaded by nearby fast‐growing conifers (shaded biculture). Most species had slower growth rates with larger neighbours, implying a net competitive effect. On the other hand, the two most shade‐tolerant species ( Tilia americana and Acer negundo ) and the most shade‐intolerant one ( Betula papyrifera ) had faster stem growth rates with larger neighbours. The two shade‐tolerant species had the greatest increases in photoinhibition (reduced dark‐acclimated F v / F m ) across the gradient of increasing light availability, which suggests they are more vulnerable to chronic light stress. While most species had lower carbon assimilation rates in the shaded biculture treatment, T. americana had rates up to 25% higher. T. americana also dropped its leaves 3–4 weeks earlier in monocultures, curtailing its growing season. We conclude that although large neighbours can cause light limitation in shade‐intolerant species, they can also increase growth through abiotic stress amelioration in shade‐tolerant species. Finally, in shade‐intolerant B. papyrifera , we find a pattern of stem elongation in trees with larger neighbours, which suggests that a shade avoidance response may account for the apparent positive trend in stem volume. Synthesis . Both positive and negative species interactions in our experiment can be explained in large part by the photosynthetic responses of trees to the light environment created by their neighbours. We show that photosynthetic physiology can help explain the species interactions that underlie biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships. The insights that ecologists gain by searching for such physiological mechanisms may help us forecast species interactions under environmental change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».