Abstract
This study addressed whether competition under different light environments was reflected by changes in leaf absorbed light energy partitioning, photosynthetic efficiency, relative growth rate and biomass allocation in invasive and native competitors. Additionally, a potential allelopathic effect of mulching with invasive Prunus serotina leaves on native Quercus petraea growth and photosynthesis was tested. The effect of light environment on leaf absorbed light energy partitioning and photosynthetic characteristics was more pronounced than the effects of interspecific competition and allelopathy. The quantum yield of PSII of invasive P. serotina increased in the presence of a competitor, indicating a higher plasticity in energy partitioning for the invasive over the native Q. petraea , giving it a competitive advantage. The most striking difference between the two study species was the higher crown-level net CO 2 assimilation rates (A crown ) of P. serotina compared with Q. petraea . At the juvenile life stage, higher relative growth rate and higher biomass allocation to foliage allowed P. serotina to absorb and use light energy for photosynthesis more efficiently than Q. petraea . Species-specific strategies of growth, biomass allocation, light energy partitioning and photosynthetic efficiency varied with the light environment and gave an advantage to the invader over its native competitor in competition for light. However, higher biomass allocation to roots in Q. petraea allows for greater belowground competition for water and nutrients as compared to P. serotina . This niche differentiation may compensate for the lower aboveground competitiveness of the native species and explain its ability to co-occur with the invasive competitor in natural forest settings.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Light environment affected leaf energy partitioning and photosynthetic characteristics more than competition or allelopathy.
- Taxon
- Prunus serotina and native Quercus petraea
Prunus serotina
Quercus petraeat0 - Outcome
- leaf absorbed light energy partitioning and photosynthetic characteristicse0
- Direction
- more pronouncede0
- Comparator
- effects of interspecific competition and allelopathye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of light environment on leaf absorbed light energy partitioning and photosynthetic characteristics was more pronounced than the effects of interspecific competition and allelopathy.”
t0“Prunus serotina and native Quercus petraea”
Claim · model-written summary
The quantum yield of PSII in invasive P. serotina increased with a competitor.
- Taxon
- P. serotinaPrunus serotinae0
- Interactor
- competitore0other
- Outcome
- quantum yield of PSIIe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The quantum yield of PSII of invasive P. serotina increased in the presence of a competitor”
t0“Prunus serotina”
Claim · model-written summary
P. serotina had higher crown-level net CO 2 assimilation than Q. petraea.
- Taxon
- P. serotinaPrunus serotinae0
- Outcome
- crown-level net CO 2 assimilation ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Q. petraeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher crown-level net CO 2 assimilation rates (A crown ) of P. serotina compared with Q. petraea”
Claim · model-written summary
Juvenile P. serotina had a higher relative growth rate than Q. petraea.
- Taxon
- P. serotinaPrunus serotinae0
- Organ / stage
- juvenile life stagee0
- Outcome
- relative growth ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Q. petraeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the juvenile life stage, higher relative growth rate and higher biomass allocation to foliage allowed P. serotina to absorb and use light energy for photosynthesis more efficiently than Q. petraea”
Claim · model-written summary
Juvenile P. serotina allocated more biomass to foliage than Q. petraea.
- Taxon
- P. serotinaPrunus serotinae0
- Organ / stage
- juvenile life stagee0
- Outcome
- biomass allocation to foliagee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Q. petraeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the juvenile life stage, higher relative growth rate and higher biomass allocation to foliage allowed P. serotina to absorb and use light energy for photosynthesis more efficiently than Q. petraea”
Claim · model-written summary
Juvenile P. serotina used absorbed light for photosynthesis more efficiently than Q. petraea.
- Taxon
- P. serotinaPrunus serotinae0
- Outcome
- absorb and use light energy for photosynthesise0
- Direction
- more efficientlye0
- Comparator
- Q. petraeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. serotina to absorb and use light energy for photosynthesis more efficiently than Q. petraea”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth, allocation, energy partitioning and photosynthetic strategies varied with light environment and favored the invader in competition for light.
- Taxon
- Prunus serotina and native Quercus petraeaPrunus serotinaQuercus petraeat0
- Interactor
- native competitore0other
- Outcome
- Species-specific strategies of growth, biomass allocation, light energy partitioning and photosynthetic efficiencye0
- Setting
- light environmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Species-specific strategies of growth, biomass allocation, light energy partitioning and photosynthetic efficiency varied with the light environment and gave an advantage to the invader over its native competitor in competition for light.”
t0“Prunus serotina and native Quercus petraea”
Claim · model-written summary
Q. petraea allocated more biomass to roots than P. serotina.
- Taxon
- Q. petraeaQuercus petraeae0
- Outcome
- biomass allocation to rootse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- P. serotinae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher biomass allocation to roots in Q. petraea allows for greater belowground competition for water and nutrients as compared to P. serotina”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater root allocation in Q. petraea may support belowground competition and coexistence with P. serotina.
- Taxon
- Q. petraeaQuercus petraeae1
- Organ / stage
- rootse1
- Interactor
- P. serotinaPrunus serotinae1other
- Outcome
- ability to co-occur with the invasive competitore0
- Setting
- natural forest settingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This niche differentiation may compensate for the lower aboveground competitiveness of the native species and explain its ability to co-occur with the invasive competitor in natural forest settings.”
e1“higher biomass allocation to roots in Q. petraea allows for greater belowground competition for water and nutrients as compared to P. serotina”