Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 150, Issue 4, pp 529–544 | Cite as

Tree height and age-related decline in growth in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)

  • Jordi Martínez-VilaltaEmail author
  • Dirk Vanderklein
  • Maurizio Mencuccini
Ecophysiology

Abstract

Growth and seasonal water use was measured amongst trees growing in an old growth Scots pine forest in the Scottish Highlands. Three sites which differed in their recent management history and contained old and naturally regenerated young trees growing together were monitored in the field. Our results showed a clear decrease in growth efficiency with age, from values of around 0.25 kg m−2 leaves year−1 in approximately 25-year-old trees to less than 0.1 kg m−2 leaves year−1 in trees over 200 years old. When the old trees in one of the field sites were released from competition by thinning, their growth efficiency reverted to that of coexisting young trees, indicating that the decline in growth was reversible. This is consistent with the results of a parallel study showing that cambial age had no effect on the physiology or growth of grafted seedlings originating from the same population studied here (Mencuccini et al. 2005). Our detailed study of tree water use in the field showed an overall decrease in whole-tree hydraulic conductance and stomatal canopy conductance with tree height in the unthinned stands, in agreement with the hydraulic limitation hypothesis. However, the effect of this reduction in hydraulic efficiency on growth was comparatively small, and old trees also showed consistently lower nitrogen concentrations in needles, suggesting that hydraulic and nutritional factors combined to produce the decline in growth efficiency with age observed in the studied populations.

Keywords

Ageing Growth efficiency Hydraulic limitation hypothesis Nitrogen Water relations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Johanna Pulli, Evi Korakaki, Nick Weir, Chris Kettle, Dr. Rosa Maria Roman Cuesta, Hazandy A. Hamid, Georgios Xenakis, Manuel E. Lucas Borja, Craig Menzie, Hanna M. Stark and Jamie Gardiner for field and lab assistance. Georgios Xenakis provided the soil description. The UK Forestry Commission (Fort Augustus Office) allowed access to the field site and was helpful throughout the study period. Mr. Alexander Grigg kindly allowed us to install our met station in his property. Mike Ryan and several anonymous reviewers substantially improved earlier versions of this manuscript. This research was funded by NERC (UK) competitive grant NER/A/S/2001/01193 to MM.

References

  1. Barnard HR, Ryan MG (2003) A test of the hydraulic limitation hypothesis in fast-growing Eucalyptus saligna. Plant Cell Environ 26:1235–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beadle CL, Talbot H, Jarvis PG (1982) Canopy structure and leaf-area index in a mature Scots pine forest. Forestry 55:105–123Google Scholar
  3. Bebber DP, Thomas SC, Cole WG, Balsillie D (2004) Diameter increment in mature eastern white pine Pinus strobus L. following partial harvest of old-growth stands in Ontario, Canada. Trees 18:29–34Google Scholar
  4. Binkley D (2004) A hypothesis about the interaction of tree dominance and stand production through stand development. For Ecol Manage 190:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binkley D, Smith FW, Son Y (1995) Nutrient supply and declines in leaf-area and production in lodgepole pine. Can J For Res 25:621–628Google Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Stape JL, Ryan MG, Barnard HR, Fownes J (2002) Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: an individual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems 5:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond BJ (2000) Age-related changes in photosynthesis of woody plants. Trends Plant Sci 5:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyden S, Binkley D, Senock R (2005) Competition and facilitation between Eucalyptus and nitrogen-fixing Falcataria in relation to soil fertility. Ecology 86:992–1001Google Scholar
  9. Brække FH (1986) Distribution and yield of biomass from young Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies stands on drained and fertilized peatland. Scand J For Res 1:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day ME, Greenwood MS, Diaz-Sala C (2002) Age- and size-related trends in woody plant shoot development: regulatory pathways and evidence for genetic control. Tree Physiol 22:507–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Delzon S, Sartore M, Burlett R, Dewar R, Loustau D (2004a) Hydraulic responses to height growth in maritime pine trees. Plant Cell Environ 27:1077–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delzon S, Sartore M, Granier A, Loustau D (2004b) Radial profiles of sap flow with increasing tree size in maritime pine. Tree Physiol 24:1285–1293Google Scholar
  13. Do F, Rocheteau A (2002) Influence of natural temperature gradients on measurements of xylem sap flow with thermal dissipation probes. 1. Field observations and possible remedies. Tree Physiol 22:641–648PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 40:503–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford CR, McGuire MA, Mitchell RJ, Teskey RO (2004) Assessing variation in the radial profile of sap flux density in Pinus species and its effect on daily water use. Tree Physiol 24:241–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gower ST, McMurtrie RE, Murty D (1996) Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: potential causes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815Google Scholar
  18. Granier A (1985) A new method of sap flow measurement in tree stems. Ann For Sci 42:193–200Google Scholar
  19. Hegyi F (1974) A simulation model for managing jack pine stands. In: Fried J (eds) Growth models for tree and stand simulations. Royal College of Forestry, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 74–90Google Scholar
  20. Hubbard RM, Bond BJ, Ryan MG (1999) Evidence that hydraulic conductance limits photosynthesis in old Pinus ponderosa trees. Tree Physiol 19:165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Irvine J, Perks MP, Magnani F, Grace J (1998) The response of Pinus sylvestris to drought: stomatal control of transpiration and hydraulic conductance. Tree Physiol 18:393–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Irvine J, Law BE, Kurpius MR, Anthoni PM, Moore D, Schwarz PA (2004) Age-related changes in ecosystem structure and function and effects on water and carbon exchange in ponderosa pine. Tree Physiol 24:753–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kira T, Shidei T (1967) Primary production and turnover of organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the Western Pacific. Jpn J Ecol 17:70–87Google Scholar
  24. Koch GW, Sillett SC, Jennings GM, Davis SD (2004) The limits to tree height. Nature 428:851–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolari P, Pumpanen J, Rannik U, Ilvesniemi H, Hari P, Berninger F (2004) Carbon balance of different aged Scots pine forests in Southern Finland. Global Change Biol 10:1106–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lagergren F, Lindroth A (2002) Transpiration response to soil moisture in pine and spruce trees in Sweden. Agric For Meteorol 112:67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnani F, Mencuccini M, Grace J (2000) Age-related decline in stand productivity: the role of structural acclimation under hydraulic constraints. Plant Cell Environ 23:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Makkonen K, Helmisaari HS (2001) Fine root biomass and production in Scots pine stands in relation to stand age. Tree Physiol 21:193–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall JD, Zhang JW (1994) Carbon-isotope discrimination and water-use efficiency in native plants of the north-central Rockies. Ecology 75:1887–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDowell N, Barnard H, Bond BJ, Hinckley T, Hubbard RM., Ishii H, Kostner B, Magnani F, Marshall JD, Meinzer FC, Phillips N, Ryan MG, Whitehead D (2002a) The relationship between tree height and leaf area: sapwood area ratio. Oecologia 132:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDowell N, Phillips N, Lunch C, Bond BJ, Ryan MG (2002b) An investigation of hydraulic limitation and compensation in large, old Douglas-fir trees. Tree Phys 22:763–774Google Scholar
  32. McDowell N, Brooks JR, Fitzgerald SA, Bond BJ (2003) Carbon isotope discrimination and growth response of old Pinus ponderosa trees to stand density reductions. Plant Cell Environ 26:631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mencuccini M, Grace J (1996a) Developmental patterns of above-ground hydraulic conductance in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) age sequence. Plant Cell Environ 19:939–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mencuccini M, Grace J (1996b) Hydraulic conductance, light interception and needle nutrient concentration in Scots pine stands and their relations with net primary productivity. Tree Physiol 16:459–468Google Scholar
  35. Mencuccini M, Martínez-Vilalta J, Hamid HA, Korakaki E, Vanderklein D, Lee S, Michiels B (2005) Size, not cellular senescence, explains reduced vigour in tall trees. Ecol Lett 8:1183–1190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niinemets U (2002) Stomatal conductance alone does not explain the decline in foliar photosynthetic rates with increasing tree age and size in Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiol 22:515–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Oleksyn J, Reich PB, Chalupka W, Tjoelker MG (1999) Differential above- and below-ground biomass accumulation of European Pinus sylvestris populations in a 12-year-old provenance experiment. Scand J For Res 14:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oren R, Pataki DE (2001) Transpiration in response to variation in microclimate and soil moisture in southeastern deciduous forests. Oecologia 127:549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG, Pataki DE, Ewers BE, Phillips N, Schafer KVR (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22:1515–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ovington JD (1957) Dry matter production by Pinus sylvestris L. Ann Bot 21:287–314Google Scholar
  41. Pataki DE, Oren R, Katul G, Sigmon J (1998) Canopy conductance of Pinus taeda, Liquidambar styraciflua and Quercus phellos under varying atmospheric and soil water conditions. Tree Physiol 18:307–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Phillips NG, Bond BJ, McDowell NG, Ryan MG, Schauer A (2003) Leaf area compounds height-related hydraulic costs of water transport in Oregon White Oak trees. Funct Ecol 17:832–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryan MG, Waring RH (1992) Maintenance respiration and stand development in a sub-alpine lodgepole pine forest. Ecology 73:2100–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan MG, Yoder BJ (1997) Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. Bioscience 47:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH (1997) Age-related decline in forest productivity: Pattern and process. Adv Ecol Res 27:213–262Google Scholar
  46. Ryan MG, Bond BJ, Law BE, Hubbard RM, Woodruff D, Cienciala E, Kucera J (2000) Transpiration and whole-tree conductance in ponderosa pine trees of different heights. Oecologia 124:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH, Giardina CP, Senock RS (2004) An experimental test of the causes of forest growth decline with stand age. Ecol Monogr 74:393–414Google Scholar
  48. Sasser CL, Binkley D (1989) Nitrogen mineralization in high-elevation forests of the Appalachians. 2. Patterns with stand development in fir waves. Biogeochemistry 7:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schäfer KVR, Oren R, Tenhunen JD (2000) The effect of tree height on crown level stomatal conductance. Plant Cell Environ 23:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shain L (1967) Resistance of sapwood in stems of loblolly pine to infection by Fomes Annosus. Phytopathology 57:1034–1045Google Scholar
  51. Vanderklein D, Martínez-Vilalta J, Lee S, Mencuccini M (2006) Effects of age and leaf area on gas exchange and growth of grafted Scots pine seedlings. Tree Physiol (in press)Google Scholar
  52. Vanninen P, Makela A (1999) Fine root biomass of Scots pine stands differing in age and soil fertility in southern Finland. Tree Physiol 19:823–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Vanninen P, Ylitalo H, Sievanen R, Makela A (1996) Effects of age and site quality on the distribution of biomass in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Trees 10:231–238Google Scholar
  54. Vapaavuori EM, Vuorinen AH, Aphalo PJ, Smolander H (1995) Relationship between net photosynthesis and nitrogen in Scots pine: seasonal variation in seedlings and shoots. Plant Soil 168/169:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waring RH (1983) Estimating forest growth and efficiency in relation to canopy leaf area. Adv Ecol Res 13:327–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weiner J, Thomas SC (2001) The nature of tree growth and the “age-related decline in forest productivity”. Oikos 94:374–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitehead D, Jarvis PG (1981) Coniferous forests and plantations. In: Kozlowski TT (ed) Water deficits and plant growth, vol VI. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 49–152Google Scholar
  58. Woodruff DR, Bond BJ, Meinzer FC (2004) Does turgor limit growth in tall trees? Plant Cell Environ 27:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wullschleger SD, Meinzer FC, Vertessy RA (1998) A review of whole-plant water use studies in trees. Tree Physiol 18:499–512Google Scholar
  60. Xiao CW, Yuste JC, Janssens IA, Roskams P, Nachtergale L, Carrara A, Sanchez BY, Ceulemans R (2003) Above- and belowground biomass and net primary production in a 73-year-old Scots pine forest. Tree Physiol 23:505–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Yoder BJ, Ryan MG, Waring RH, Schoettle AW, Kaufmann MR (1994) Evidence of reduced photosynthetic rates in old trees. For Sci 40:513–527Google Scholar
  62. Zianis D, Mencuccini M (2003) Aboveground biomass relationships for beech (Fagus moesiaca Cz.) trees in Vermio Mountain, Northern Greece, and generalised equations for Fagus sp. Ann For Sci 60:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Martínez-Vilalta
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dirk Vanderklein
    • 3
  • Maurizio Mencuccini
    • 1
  1. 1.School of GeoSciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.CREAF/Unitat d’EcologiaUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterra (Barcelona)Spain
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Molecular BiologyMontclair State UniversityMontclairUSA

Personalised recommendations