Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation did not significantly affect final trembling aspen seedling biomass.
- Taxon
- trembling aspene1
- Treatment
- Defoliatione0
- Outcome
- final seedling biomasse0
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation did not significantly affect final seedling biomass in either species or CO2 treatment”
e1“trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.)”
Title
Responses of deciduous broadleaf trees to defoliation in a CO2 enriched atmosphere
J. C. Volin; E. L. Kruger; R. L. Lindroth Tree Physiology 2002. doi:10.1093/treephys/22.7.435
Other claims from this paper (11)
- Intervention effect Defoliation did not significantly affect final sugar maple seedling biomass.
- Association Maple growth recovery after defoliation was associated with increased allocation to leaf mass.
- Association Aspen growth recovery after defoliation was associated with slightly enhanced mean photosynthesis.
- Intervention effect Elevated CO2 did not significantly affect aspen growth.
- Intervention effect Elevated CO2 stimulated maple growth significantly only at mid-season.
- Mechanism Reduced photosynthetic capacity constrained simulated whole-tree photosynthetic responses to elevated CO2 in maple.
- Mechanism Reduced specific leaf area partly offset simulated whole-tree photosynthetic responses to elevated CO2 in aspen.
- Mechanism Reduced biomass allocation to foliage partly offset simulated whole-tree photosynthetic responses to elevated CO2 in aspen.
- Association Only a few measured traits showed a significant CO2-by-defoliation interaction.
- Observation The data do not support substantial alteration of tree responses to folivory by CO2 enrichment.
- Observation Regeneration-stage growth rates of some temperate trees may respond only moderately to near-doubled atmospheric CO2.