Abstract
We investigated the individual and combined effects of elevated CO2 concentration and fertilization on aboveground growth of three poplar species (Populus alba L. Clone 2AS-11, P. nigra L. Clone Jean Pourtet and P. x euramericana Clone I-214) growing in a short-rotation coppice culture for two growing seasons after coppicing. Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool, leaf area index measured with a fish-eye-type plant canopy analyzer (LAIoptical), and annual leaf production, but did not affect dominant shoot height or canopy productivity index. Comparison of LAIoptical with LAI estimates from litter collections and from allometric relationships showed considerable differences. The increase in biomass in response to FACE was caused by an initial stimulation of absolute and relative growth rates, which disappeared after the first growing season following coppicing. An ontogenetic decline in growth in the FACE treatment, together with strong competition inside the dense plantation, may have caused this decrease. Fertilization did not influence aboveground growth, although some FACE responses were more pronounced in fertilized trees. A species effect was observed for most parameters.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool in poplar coppice.
- Treatment
- Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE)e1
- Outcome
- number of shoots per stoole1
- Direction
- stimulatede1
PopulusNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e1“Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool, leaf area index measured with a fish-eye-type plant canopy analyzer (LAIoptical), and annual leaf production, but did not affect dominant shoot height or canopy productivity index”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) stimulated leaf area index of poplar coppice, measured with a canopy analyzer.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e1“Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool, leaf area index measured with a fish-eye-type plant canopy analyzer (LAIoptical), and annual leaf production, but did not affect dominant shoot height or canopy productivity index”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) stimulated annual leaf production of poplar coppice.
- Treatment
- Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE)e1
- Outcome
- annual leaf productione1
- Direction
- stimulatede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e1“Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool, leaf area index measured with a fish-eye-type plant canopy analyzer (LAIoptical), and annual leaf production, but did not affect dominant shoot height or canopy productivity index”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) did not affect dominant shoot height of poplar coppice.
- Treatment
- Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE)e1
- Outcome
- dominant shoot heighte1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e1“Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool, leaf area index measured with a fish-eye-type plant canopy analyzer (LAIoptical), and annual leaf production, but did not affect dominant shoot height or canopy productivity index”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) did not affect canopy productivity index of poplar coppice.
- Treatment
- Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE)e1
- Outcome
- canopy productivity indexe1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e1“Free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) stimulated the number of shoots per stool, leaf area index measured with a fish-eye-type plant canopy analyzer (LAIoptical), and annual leaf production, but did not affect dominant shoot height or canopy productivity index”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area index measured with a fish-eye canopy analyzer (LAIoptical) showed considerable differences from LAI estimates based on litter collections and allometric relationships in poplar.
- Outcome
- LAIopticale2
- Qualifier
- showed considerable differencese2
- Comparator
- LAI estimates from litter collections and from allometric relationshipse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e2“Comparison of LAIoptical with LAI estimates from litter collections and from allometric relationships showed considerable differences”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) increased biomass of poplar coppice.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e3“The increase in biomass in response to FACE was caused by an initial stimulation of absolute and relative growth rates, which disappeared after the first growing season following coppicing”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 (FACE) initially stimulated absolute and relative growth rates of poplar, and the stimulation disappeared after the first growing season following coppicing.
- Treatment
- FACEe3
- Outcome
- absolute and relative growth ratese3
- Direction
- stimulatione3
- Qualifier
- disappeared after the first growing season following coppicinge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e3“The increase in biomass in response to FACE was caused by an initial stimulation of absolute and relative growth rates, which disappeared after the first growing season following coppicing”
Claim · model-written summary
The FACE-driven biomass increase is attributed to an initial stimulation of growth rates in poplar.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e3“The increase in biomass in response to FACE was caused by an initial stimulation of absolute and relative growth rates, which disappeared after the first growing season following coppicing”
Claim · model-written summary
An ontogenetic decline in growth under FACE, with competition in the dense plantation, may have caused the decrease in biomass gain of poplar.
- Treatment
- FACE treatmente4
- Outcome
- decreasee4
- Qualifier
- An ontogenetic decline in growth in the FACE treatment, together with strong competition inside the dense plantatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e4“An ontogenetic decline in growth in the FACE treatment, together with strong competition inside the dense plantation, may have caused this decrease”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization did not influence aboveground growth of poplar.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e5“Fertilization did not influence aboveground growth, although some FACE responses were more pronounced in fertilized trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Some FACE responses of poplar were more pronounced in fertilized trees.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e5“Fertilization did not influence aboveground growth, although some FACE responses were more pronounced in fertilized trees”
Claim · model-written summary
A species effect was observed for most growth parameters of the three poplar species.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground growth of three poplar species”
e6“A species effect was observed for most parameters”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · growth · Populus (poplar)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →fertilization · growth · Populus (poplar)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →co2 · yield · Populus (poplar)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.