Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T17:22:59.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Plant Strategies

from Part V - Terrestrial Plant Ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Gordon Bonan
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Get access

Summary

Chapter Summary

A plant uses the carbon gained during photosynthesis for maintenance and survival, to grow foliage, a stem, and roots, and for reproduction. It must allocate its limited available resources among growth, maintenance, and reproduction in a manner such that the species persists over time. Plants exhibit different strategies for allocating resources, collectively known as life history patterns. A successful strategy is to invest heavily in reproductive effort. The plant is small, short lived, and has many widely dispersed seeds, such as a herbaceous annual. An equally successful strategy is to be large, long lived, and have a small crop of large seeds, such as a tree. This life history favors maintenance over reproduction. There are multiple life history patterns that allow success in a given environment, but not all are successful in all environments. The environment selectively determines which strategy is successful. These life histories ensure the persistence of multiple species across the landscape in accordance with resource gradients and disturbance regimes. They give pattern to the arrangement of plant populations and communities in space and time. Three conceptualizations of plant strategies are the classifications of species into: r- and K-selected life histories; ruderal, competitor, and stress tolerator plants; and early and late successional species. More generally, plant functional types are broad classes of plants that reduce the complexity of species diversity in ecological function to a few plant types defined by key physiological and life history characteristics. However, plant traits have a continuum of variation. These traits are understood in terms of functional tradeoffs between high metabolism and persistence.

Carbon Balance of Plants

The net carbon gain of a plant that is available for growth is the difference between carbon uptake during photosynthesis and carbon loss during respiration (Figure 18.1). The photosynthetic uptake of an individual leaf must be summed over all foliage held by the plant to give gross primary production (GPP). Respiration loss must be summed over all tissues in the plant. The combined whole-plant respiration is termed autotrophic respiration (RA) and is typically about 50 percent of gross primary production (Ryan 1991). Plant respiration is divided into growth respiration, which is independent of temperature, and maintenance respiration, which increases with higher temperatures. Growth respiration releases CO2 during the synthesis of new tissues. This involves the incorporation of carbon into organic compounds and the expenditure of metabolic energy to produce the compounds.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Climatology
Concepts and Applications
, pp. 291 - 314
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamson, W. G., and Gadgil, M. (1973). Growth form and reproductive effort in goldenrods (Solidago, Compositae). American Naturalist, 107, 651–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. (1979). The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. (1996). Plants in Changing Environments: Linking Physiological, Population, and Community Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. J., Chapin, F. S., III, and Mooney, H. A. (1985). Resource limitation in plants – an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B., Levis, S., Kergoat, L., and Oleson, K. W. (2002). Landscapes as patches of plant functional types: An integrating concept for climate and ecosystem models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16, 1021, doi:10.1029/2000GB001360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, F. H., and Likens, G. E. (1979). Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodribb, T. J., Pittermann, J., and Coomes, D. A. (2012). Elegance versus speed: examining the competition between conifer and angiosperm trees. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 173, 673–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabot, B. F., and Hicks, D. J. (1982). The ecology of leaf life spans. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S., III (1991). Integrated responses of plants to stress. BioScience, 41, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choat, B., Jansen, S., Brodribb, T. J., et al. (2012). Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature, 491, 752–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeFries, R. S., Townshend, J. R. G., and Hansen, M. C. (1999). Continuous fields of vegetation characteristics at the global scale at 1-km resolution. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104D, 16911–16923.Google Scholar
DeFries, R. S., Hansen, M. C., and Townshend, J. R. G. (2000a). Global continuous fields of vegetation characteristics: A linear mixture model applied to multi-year 8 km AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 1389–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFries, R. S., Hansen, M. C., Townshend, J. R. G., Janetos, A. C., and Loveland, T. R. (2000b). A new global 1-km dataset of percentage tree cover derived from remote sensing. Global Change Biology, 6, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, C., and Mooney, H. A. (1986). The photosynthesis–nitrogen relationship in wild plants. In On the Economy of Plant Form and Function, ed. Givnish, T. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M., and Solbrig, O. T. (1972). The concept of r- and K-selection: Evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical considerations. American Naturalist, 106, 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, S. K., and Tilman, D. (1992). Plant allocation and the multiple limitation hypothesis. American Naturalist, 139, 1322–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. T., and Richards, J. H. (1990). Larches: Deciduous conifers in an evergreen world. BioScience, 40, 818–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, S. T., Vogel, J. G., Norman, J. M., et al. (1997). Carbon distribution and aboveground net primary production in aspen, jack pine, and black spruce stands in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102D, 29029–29041.Google Scholar
Grace, J. (1997). Toward models of resource allocation by plants. In Plant Resource Allocation, ed. Bazzaz, F. A. and Grace, J.. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
Grier, C. C., and Running, S. W. (1977). Leaf area of mature northwestern coniferous forests: Relation to site water balance. Ecology, 58, 893–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. (1979). Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P., and Jeffrey, D. W. (1965). Seedling establishment in vertical gradients of sunlight. Journal of Ecology, 53, 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L., and Ogden, J. (1970). The reproductive strategy of higher plants, I: The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L.Journal of Ecology, 58, 681–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, M., and Smith, T. (1987). Plant succession: Life history and competition. American Naturalist, 130, 168–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. T. (1966). Effects of microclimate on spring flowering phenology. Ecology, 47, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikuzawa, K. (1991). A cost–benefit analysis of leaf habit and leaf longevity of trees and their geographical pattern. American Naturalist, 138, 1250–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, G. W., Sillett, S. C., Jennings, G. M., and Davis, S. D. (2004). The limits to tree height. Nature, 428, 851–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraft, N. J. B., Metz, M. R., Condit, R. S., and Chave, J. (2010). The relationship between wood density and mortality in a global tropical forest data set. New Phytologist, 188, 1124–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larcher, W. (1995). Physiological Plant Ecology, 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leishman, M. R., and Westoby, M. (1994). The role of large seed size in shaded conditions: Experimental evidence. Functional Ecology, 8, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loehle, C. (1988). Tree life history strategies: The role of defenses. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 18, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Markesteijn, L., Poorter, L., Bongers, F., Paz, H. and Sack, L. (2011a). Hydraulics and life history of tropical dry forest tree species: Coordination of species’ drought and shade tolerance. New Phytologist, 191, 480–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markesteijn, L., Poorter, L., Paz, H., Sack, L., and Bongers, F. (2011b). Ecological differentiation in xylem cavitation resistance is associated with stem and leaf structural traits. Plant, Cell and Environment, 34, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mencuccini, M., and Grace, J. (1994). Climate influences the leaf area/sapwood area ratio in Scots pine. Tree Physiology, 15, 1–10.Google Scholar
Mooney, H. A., and Gulmon, S. L. (1982). Constraints on leaf structure and function in reference to herbivory. BioScience, 32, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemani, R. R., and Running, S. W. (1989). Testing a theoretical climate–soil–leaf area hydrologic equilibrium of forests using satellite data and ecosystem simulation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 44, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemani, R. R., and Running, S. W. (1996). Implementation of a hierarchical global vegetation classification in ecosystem function models. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (2007). Maximum plant height and the biophysical factors that limit it. Tree Physiology, 27, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü, Poorter, L., Wright, I. J., and Villar, R. (2009). Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): A meta-analysis. New Phytologist, 182, 565–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poorter, H., Niklas, K. J., Reich, P. B., et al. (2012). Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: Meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytologist, 193, 30–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., and Ellsworth, D. S. (1992). Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62, 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, P. B., Kloeppel, B. D., Ellsworth, D. S., and Walters, M. B. (1995a). Different photosynthesis–nitrogen relations in deciduous hardwood and evergreen coniferous tree species. Oecologia, 104, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reich, P. B., Koike, T., Gower, S. T., and Schoettle, A. W. (1995b). Causes and consequences of variation in conifer leaf life-span. In Ecophysiology of Coniferous Forests, ed. Smith, W. K. and Hinckley, T. M.. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 225–254.Google Scholar
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., and Ellsworth, D. S. (1997). From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 94, 13730–13734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reich, P. B., Ellsworth, D. S., and Walters, M. B. (1998a). Leaf structure (specific leaf area) modulates photosynthesis–nitrogen relations: Evidence from within and across species and functional groups. Functional Ecology, 12, 948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., Ellsworth, D. S., et al. (1998b). Relationships of leaf dark respiration to leaf nitrogen, specific leaf area and leaf life-span: A test across biomes and functional groups. Oecologia, 114, 471–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Running, S. W., Loveland, T. R., Pierce, L. L., Nemani, R. R., and Hunt, E. R., Jr. (1995). A remote sensing based vegetation classification logic for global land cover analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment, 51, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. G. (1991). Effects of climate change on plant respiration. Ecological Applications, 1, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, M. G., and Yoder, B. J. (1997). Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. BioScience, 47, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. G., Phillips, N., and Bond, B. J. (2006). The hydraulic limitation hypothesis revisited. Plant, Cell and Environment, 29, 367–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saverimuttu, T., and Westoby, M. (1996). Seedling longevity under deep shade in relation to seed size. Journal of Ecology, 84, 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, E.-D., Kelliher, F. M., Körner, C., Lloyd, J., and Leuning, R. (1994). Relationships among maximum stomatal conductance, ecosystem surface conductance, carbon assimilation rate, and plant nitrogen nutrition: A global ecology scaling exercise. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25, 629–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, H. H. (1984). A Theory of Forest Dynamics: The Ecological Implications of Forest Succession Models. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, H. H. (1987). Dynamic ecosystem consequences of tree birth and death patterns. BioScience, 37, 596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, H. H. (1998). Terrestrial Ecosystems in Changing Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. (1988). Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ustin, S. L., and Gamon, J. A. (2010). Remote sensing of plant functional types. New Phytologist, 186, 795–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, M. B., and Reich, P. B. (2000). Seed size, nitrogen supply, and growth rate affect tree seedling survival in deep shade. Ecology, 81, 1887–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waring, R. H. (1983). Estimating forest growth and efficiency in relation to canopy leaf area. Advances in Ecological Research, 13, 327–354.Google Scholar
Waring, R. H. (1991). Responses of evergreen trees to multiple stresses. In Response of Plants to Multiple Stresses, ed. Mooney, H. A., Winner, W. E., and Pell, E. J.. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 371–390.Google Scholar
Waring, R. H., and Franklin, J. F. (1979). Evergreen coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Science, 204, 1380–1386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waring, R. H., Schroeder, P. E., and Oren, R. (1982). Application of the pipe model theory to predict canopy leaf area. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12, 556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M., Falster, D. S., Moles, A. T., Vesk, P. A., and Wright, I. J. (2002). Plant ecological strategies: Some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 125–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, F. I. (1987). Climate and Plant Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, F. I. (1993). Leaf responses to the environment and extrapolation to larger scales. In Vegetation Dynamics and Global Change, ed. Solomon, A. M. and Shugart, H. H.. New York: Chapman and Hall, pp. 71–100.Google Scholar
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., et al. (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature, 428, 821–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Cornelissen, J. H. C., et al. (2005). Assessing the generality of global leaf trait relationships. New Phytologist, 166, 485–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. J., Kitajima, K., Kraft, N. J. B., et al. (2010). Functional traits and the growth–mortality trade-off in tropical trees. Ecology, 91, 3664–3674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Plant Strategies
  • Gordon Bonan, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • Book: Ecological Climatology
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107339200.019
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Plant Strategies
  • Gordon Bonan, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • Book: Ecological Climatology
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107339200.019
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Plant Strategies
  • Gordon Bonan, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • Book: Ecological Climatology
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107339200.019
Available formats
×