Paper · 1999 · Tree Physiology

Long-term effects of elevated carbon dioxide concentration and provenance on four clones of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). I. Plant growth, allocation and ontogeny

M. Centritto; H. S. J. Lee; P. G. Jarvis

8
claims
18
verbatim quotes
49
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Four clones of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) from two provenances, at 53.2 degrees N (Skidegate a and Skidegate b) and at 41.3 degrees N (North Bend a and North Bend b), were grown near Edinburgh (55.5 degrees N), U.K., for three growing seasons in ambient (~350 micromol per mol) and elevated (~700 micromol per mol) CO2 concentrations under conditions of non-limiting water and nutrient supply. Bud phenology was not affected by elevated [CO2] in the second growing season, but in the third year, the duration of shoot extension growth in three of the four clones (North Bend clones and Skidegate a) was significantly shortened, because of the suppression of lammas growth. Saplings in elevated [CO2] had significantly greater dry masses of all components than saplings in ambient [CO2]. However, comparison of relative component dry masses between plants of similar size showed no effect of [CO2] treatment on plant allometric relationships. This finding, and the observed suppression of lammas growth by high [CO2] during the third growing season suggests that the main effect of increasing [CO2] is to accelerate sapling development. Clonal provenance did not affect dry mass production in ambient [CO2]. However, in elevated [CO2] the more southerly clones significantly out-performed the more northerly clones when grown at a latitude close to the latitudinal provenance of the Skidegate clones. As atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rises, such changes in the relative performance of genotypes may be exploited for economic gain through appropriate selection of provenances for forest plantings.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In the third year, elevated CO2 significantly shortened shoot extension growth duration in three of four clones, through suppression of lammas growth.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Material
North Bend clones and Skidegate ae0
Treatment
elevated (~700 micromol per mol) CO2e1
Outcome
duration of shoot extension growthe0
Direction
shortenede0
Qualifier
suppression of lammas growthe0
Comparator
ambient (~350 micromol per mol)e1
Setting
near Edinburgh (55.5 degrees N), U.K.e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e0

“in the third year, the duration of shoot extension growth in three of the four clones (North Bend clones and Skidegate a) was significantly shortened, because of the suppression of lammas growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–690 · show in text ↑
e1

“grown near Edinburgh (55.5 degrees N), U.K., for three growing seasons in ambient (~350 micromol per mol) and elevated (~700 micromol per mol) CO2 concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 191–352 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bud phenology was not affected by elevated CO2 in the second growing season.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e0
Outcome
Bud phenologye0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e0

“Bud phenology was not affected by elevated [CO2] in the second growing season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 413–490 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Saplings in elevated CO2 had significantly greater dry masses of all components than saplings in ambient CO2.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e1
Outcome
dry masses of all componentse1
Direction
greatere1
Comparator
ambient [CO2]e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e1

“Saplings in elevated [CO2] had significantly greater dry masses of all components than saplings in ambient [CO2]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 692–804 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elevated CO2 had no effect on plant allometric relationships between plants of similar size.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Treatment
[CO2] treatmente2
Outcome
plant allometric relationshipse2
Direction
no_changeinferrede2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e2

“comparison of relative component dry masses between plants of similar size showed no effect of [CO2] treatment on plant allometric relationships”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–959 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The main effect of increasing CO2 is interpreted as accelerating sapling development.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Treatment
increasing [CO2]e3
Outcome
sapling developmente3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e3

“the observed suppression of lammas growth by high [CO2] during the third growing season suggests that the main effect of increasing [CO2] is to accelerate sapling development”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 979–1153 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Clonal provenance did not affect dry mass production in ambient CO2.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Material
Clonal provenancee4
Treatment
ambient [CO2]e4
Outcome
dry mass productione4
Direction
did not affecte4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e4

“Clonal provenance did not affect dry mass production in ambient [CO2]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1155–1224 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In elevated CO2, the more southerly clones significantly out-performed the more northerly clones in dry mass production.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Material
the more southerly clonese5
Treatment
elevated [CO2]e5
Outcome
dry mass productione4
Direction
out-performede5
Comparator
the more northerly clonese5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e5

“in elevated [CO2] the more southerly clones significantly out-performed the more northerly clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1235–1332 · show in text ↑
e4

“Clonal provenance did not affect dry mass production in ambient [CO2]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1155–1224 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Selection of provenances for forest plantings may be exploited for economic gain as CO2 rises.

Taxon
Sitka sprucePicea sitchensist0
Outcome
appropriate selection of provenances for forest plantingse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea sitchensis
Picea sitchensis · TaxonDoug Kerr from Albany, NY, United States · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“four clones of Sitka spruce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–104 · show in text ↑
e6

“such changes in the relative performance of genotypes may be exploited for economic gain through appropriate selection of provenances for forest plantings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1470–1624 · show in text ↑

co2 · growth · Picea sitchensis (Sitka spruce)Results differ

8 papers: 4 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.