%0 Journal Article %1 Lambers1992 %A Lambers, H. %A Poorter, H. %D 1992 %J Advances In Ecological Research %K bibtex-import, citeulikeExport honours, resource\_use %P 187--261 %T Inherent Variation In Growth-Rate Between Higher-Plants - A Search For Physiological Causes And Ecological Consequences %V 23

@article{Lambers1992, added-at = {2019-03-31T01:14:40.000+0100}, author = {Lambers, H. and Poorter, H.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f7ca9fcb6eac0a4bec90999c6fc92237/dianella}, citeulike-article-id = {1523805}, comment = {(private-note)SLA: higher in annuals than perennials. In mesomorphic leaves. (in mesic environments, rather than xeric) ? Variation in SLA comes about through: chemical variation: accumulation of starch, secondary compounds anatomical variation: extra cell layers (esp. palisade parenchyma cell layers) smaller cell sizes: increased cell wall to volume ratio. Heavier. More vascular tissue Investment in leaf hairs, thorns, etc. LMR, SMR, RMR (Biomass partitioning) Things that increase leaf mass ratio: Low QFD (light) Ditto RMR: low nutrients or water, \ ABA and gibberellin balance (both) No clear trend LMR and RGR over spp. Slower growing grasses often have higher specific root length and more fine roots (Berendse and Elberse1989 not found in Poorter and Remkes 1990) Chemistry: Slower growing species often have more cell wall components. This alters the water content Indeed, slow-growing spp have lower water content (Dijkstra and Lambers 1989, Poorter and Bergkotte 1992) Enval condits (eg nut supply and water stress) can cause an accumulation of non-structural carbohydrates, to use the excess carbon, they make c-based defenses. There is a much glucose spent making one mol of lignin as one mol starch or cellulose, but it can accumuate to greater extents, therefore using considerable amounts of a plant?s carbon resources, which could otherwise go towards photosynthesis. Carbon concentrations of high RGR plants are low, because of different chemical makeup: CC doesn?t have a very large effect on RGR though: for a 10 percent increase in CC there?s a 300\% increase in RGR. *disagree More gibberellins in faster-growing genotypes. (people) Photosynthesis. (no specific example but generally) hiRGRspp have higher rates of photosynthesis per unit leaf weight than slow-growing ones (references therein Dijkstra). Sometimes phenotypic, eg, poor nut supply in nat hab. PNUE. Low in low RGR Stuff. Respiration. Greater with greater RGR But not as much of an increase as expected. Greater respiration efficiency? (??less photorespiration?? No.)More efficient mitochondria??? Not yet sure. More efficient use of ATP: variation in sp.ic cost of energy-requiring processes. Maintenance costs unknown Construction costs not different Nutrient acquisition costs (more efflux, per influx in slogro?) Also, SLA correlates with PNUE. Low chlorophyll concentration per unit leaf area, therefore reduced internal shading, and better PNUE. How do plants of different RGRs perform at sub-optimal conditions? High-RGR plants aremore affected by low nutrient concentrations, however, they are still faster growing. (lots of references) Light. Similar kind of. Slow growers Function closer to optimum than fast growers in adverse environments. (?ecological? optimum not same as ?physiological? optimum: physiological optimum same for slow and fast-growing species. Fast species more competitive, have better ability to adapt (Bradshaw 1965, Grime et al 1986, van der werf 1992a) and don?t really seem disadvantaged) Slow-growing species save up photosynthates for incorporation into structural biomass later on, when there are growth-restricting periods *(!!!! Light ? limiting periods on the SA???) ?problem. Growth is restricted before photosynthesis in adverse conditions, and sugars accumulate. *does this always happen? Subantarctic? (hennion pringlea) Having a high potential RGR in a habitat where it can?t be realised is a selectively-neutral trait. Problem: even a slightly higher RGR might still be advantageous. (* and what about P. annua?) Conclusion: a low RGR per se doesn?t confer an ecological advantage. One of the components of RGR has instead been the target of selection The selective advantage of having low SLA: Saves on transpiration. Better WUE Long-lived leaves reduce nutrient demand (therein) The abrasive effects of high wind strengths can be reduced by investment in fibre. (therein) Leaf hairs and epicuticular waxes reduce transpiration. And UV damage, disease resistance, salt spray damage.. *WAXES YES. Non-stick P.foliosa? Pammenter et al. 1986: Agrostis stolonifera had higher SLA. Could only survive in wind-sheltered places. Agrostis magellanica has more sclerenchyma. High SLA appears to be associated with competitive ability, low SLA with persistence. There?s no conclusive evidence that low RGR is invariably causally related to stress tolerance. There are trade-offs between investment in conservation and high growth potential structures. Hypothesis: biomass allocation of fast spp more plastic.}, interhash = {e3f0c5a46f915f297f43d5206b6d198c}, intrahash = {f7ca9fcb6eac0a4bec90999c6fc92237}, journal = {Advances In Ecological Research}, keywords = {bibtex-import, citeulikeExport honours, resource\_use}, pages = {187--261}, posted-at = {2007-07-31 06:36:05}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2019-03-31T01:16:26.000+0100}, title = {{Inherent Variation In Growth-Rate Between Higher-Plants - A Search For Physiological Causes And Ecological Consequences}}, volume = 23, year = 1992 }