Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stage-dependent plasticity in biomass allocation and allometry in response to population density in Abutilon theophrasti: a step forward to understanding the nature of phenotypic plasticity

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How plants respond to density via modular plasticity is obscure, probably because relevant studies using covariance analysis (ANCOVA) and allometric analysis rarely focus on multiple stages of plant growth, and also the two approaches are seldom used simultaneously. In this study, a field experiment evaluated the effects of three density levels on resource allocation traits in Abutilon theophrasti and tested the degree to which these were explained by indirect effects of density on biomass over time. Results showed inconsistent responses in allocation traits and allometric relationships at each growth stage. At 30 days of plant growth, high density increased root/stem, root/leaf, and stem/leaf, but did not affect any allometric relationships. At 50 days, density altered most mass and ratio traits, but not for allometric exponents. At 70 days, density altered allometric relationships, but did not affect plant allocation patterns. The stage-dependent allometric relationships and the fact that allocation plasticity and allometric plasticity did not coincide both suggested that one-stage allometric plasticity might be apparent plasticity. In response to the increase of density, plants first altered the strategy of biomass partitioning and then growth rate or developmental stage, indicating that density effects intensified over time. For plasticity in a modular trait, size effects can be regarded as a component of (indirect) environmental effects, with the residual variation after removal of size effects being the other component of plant (direct) active response. The insights into apparent plasticity of allometry and two components of plasticity should be of essential importance to investigating phenotypic plasticity and its ecological and evolutionary implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts R (1999) Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and plant-soil feedbacks. J Exp Bot 50:29–37

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-Cansino L, Zunzunegui M, Barradas MCD, Esquivias MP (2010) Gender-specific costs of reproduction on vegetative growth and physiological performance in the dioecious shrub Corema album. Ann Bot 106:989–998

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Arenas F, Viejo RM, Fernández C (2002) Density-dependent regulation in an invasive seaweed: responses at plant and modular levels. J Ecol 90:820–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auffray JC, Debat V, Alibert P (1999) Shape asymmetry and developmental stability. In: Chaplain MAJ (ed) On growth and form: spatiotemporal patterning in biology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 309–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell DL, Galloway LF (2007) Plasticity to neighbour shade: fitness consequences and allometry. Funct Ecol 21:1146–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berendse F, Möller F (2009) Effects of competition on root-shoot allocation in Plantago lanceolata L.: adaptive plasticity or ontogenetic drift? Plant Ecol 201:567–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitations in plants—an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouvet J-M, Vigneron P, Saya A (2005) Phenotypic plasticity of growth trajectory and ontogenic allometry in response to density for eucalyptus hybrid clones and families. Ann Bot 96:811–821

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Gen 13:155

  • Cahill JF Jr (2003) Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species. J Ecol 91:532–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper BB, Cahill JF Jr, Hyatt LA (1998) Above-ground competition does not alter biomass allocated to roots in Abutilon theophrasti. New Phytol 140:231–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheplick GP (2006) A modular approach to biomass allocation in an invasive annual (Microstegium vimineum; Poaceae). Am J Bot 93:539–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheplick GP (2020) Life-history variation in a native perennial grass (Tridens flavus): reproductive allocation, biomass partitioning, and allometry. Plant Ecol 221:103–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS, McConnaughay KDM, Ackerly DD (1994) Interpreting phenotypic variation in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 9:187–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conover DO, Schultz ET (1995) Phenotypic similarity and the evolutionary significance of countergradient variation. Trends Ecol Evol 10(6):248–252

  • de Kroon, H, Huber H, Stuefer JF Van Groenendael JM (2005) A modular concept of phenotypic plasticity in plants. New Phytol 166(1):73–82

  • Debat V, David P (2001) Mapping phenotypes: canalization, plasticity and developmental stability. Trends Ecol Evol 16(10):555–561

  • Donald CM (1958) The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust J Agric Res 9:421–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybzinski R, Farrior C, Wolf A, Reich PB, Pacala SW (2011) Evolutionarily stable strategy of carbon allocation to foliage, wood, and fine roots in trees competing for light and nitrogen: an analytically tractable, individual-based model and quantitative comparisons to data. Am Nat 177:153–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elgart M, Snir O, Soen Y (2015) Stress-mediated tuning of developmental robustness and plasticity in flies. Biochim et Biophys Acta—Gene Regul Mech 1849:462–466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410:655–660

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forster MA, Ladd B, Bonser SP (2011) Optimal allocation of resources in response to shading and neighbours in the heteroblastic species, Acacia implexa. Ann Bot 107:219–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fox JF (1995) Shoot demographic responses to manipulation of reproductive effort by bud removal in a willow. Oikos 72:283–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersani M, Brown JS, Brien EO, Maina GM, Abramsky Z (2001) Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J Ecol 89:660–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghalambor CK, McKay JK, Carroll SP, Reznick DN (2007) Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Func Ecol 21(3):394–407

  • Gleason HA, Cronquist A (1991) Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill TD, Roberts BJ (2017) Effects of seasonality and environmental gradients on Spartina alterniflora allometry and primary production. Ecol Evol 7:9676–9688

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Houle D, Jones LT, Fortune R, Sztepanacz JL (2019) Why does allometry evolve so slowly? Integr Comp Biol 59:1429–1440

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y-X, Zhao X-Y, Zhou D-W, Luo Y-Y, Mao W (2010) Allometry of Corispermum macrocarpu in response to soil nutrient, water, and population density. Botany 88:13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulshof CM, Stegen JC, Swenson NG, Enquist CA, Enquist BJ (2012) Interannual variability of growth and reproduction in Bursera simaruba: the role of allometry and resource variability. Ecology 93:180–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings MJ, Budd CSJ (1981) Plant competition and its course through time. Bioscience 31:640–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Japhet W, Zhou D, Zhang H, Zhang H, Yu T (2009) Evidence of phenotypic plasticity in the response of Fagopyrum esculentum to population density and sowing date. J Plant Biol 52:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson P, Méndez M (eds) (2005) The resource economy of plant reproduction. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitano H (2004) Biological robustness. Nat Rev Genet 5:826–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kost C, de Oliveira EG, Knoch TA, Wirth R (2005) Spatio-temporal permanence and plasticity of foraging trails in young and mature leaf-cutting ant colonies (Atta spp.). J Trop Ecol 21:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin DC, Gremer JR, Adler PB, Mitchell RM, Moore MM (2020) The net effect of functional traits on fitness. Trends Ecol Evol 36:1037–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Weiner J, Zhou D, Huang Y, Sheng L (2013) Initial density affects biomass–density and allometric relationships in self-thinning populations of Fagopyrum esculentum. J Ecol 101:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li PF, Ma BL, Yan W, Cheng ZG, Li FM, Xiong YC (2016) Plant architecture, plasticity, and adaptation strategies of two oat genotypes under different competition intensities. J Sci Food Agric 96:1431–1439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lines ER, Zavala MA, Purves DW, Coomes DA (2012) Predictable changes in aboveground allometry of trees along gradients of temperature, aridity and competition. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:1017–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maliakal SK, McDonnell K, Dudley SA, Schmitt J (1999) Effects of red to far-red ratio and plant density on biomass allocation and gas exchange in Impatiens capensis. Int J Plant Sci 160:723–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masel J, Siegal ML (2009) Robustness: mechanisms and consequences. Trends Genet 25:395–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuyama S, Sakimoto M (2008) Allocation to reproduction and relative reproductive costs in two species of dioecious Anacardiaceae with contrasting phenology. Ann Bot 101:1391–1400

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy MC, Enquist BJ (2007) Consistency between an allometric approach and optimal partitioning theory in global patterns of plant biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 21:713–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnaughay KDM, Bazzaz FA (1992) The occupation and fragmentation of space: consequences of neighbouring shoots. Funct Ecol 6:711–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnaughay KDM, Coleman JS (1999) Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581–2593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mestek BL, Barkoulas M (2016) The developmental genetics of biological robustness. Ann Bot 117:699–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris EC (1999) Density-dependent mortality induced by low nutrient status of the substrate. Ann Bot 84:95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller I, Schmid B, Weiner J (2000) The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants. Perspect Plant Ecol, Evol Syst 3:115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy GP, Dudley SA (2007) Above- and below-ground competition cues elicit independent responses. J Ecol 95:261–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navas ML, Garnier E (2002) Plasticity of whole plant and leaf traits in Rubia peregrina in response to light, nutrient and water availability. Acta Oecologica 23:375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicklas KJ (1994) Plant allometry: the scaling of form and process. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicotra AB, Atkin OK, Bonser SP, Davidson AM, Finnegan EJ, Mathesius U, Poot P, Purugganan MD, Richards CL, ValladaresKleunen FMv (2010) Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci 15:684–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien EE, Gersani M, Brown JS (2005) Root proliferation and seed yield in response to spatial heterogeneity of below-ground competition. New Phytol 168:401–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa K (2003) Size dependence of lead area and the mass of component organs during a course of self-thinning in a hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa) seedling population. Ecol Res 18:611–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer AR, Strobeck C (1986) Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17(1):391–421

  • Palmer AR (1994) Fluctuating asymmetry analysis: a primer. In: Markow TA (ed) Developmental instability: its origins and evolutionary implications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. pp 335–364

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2005) Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends Ecol Evol 20:481–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pino J, Sans FX, Masalles RM (2002) Size-dependent reproductive pattern and short-term reproductive cost in Rumex obtusifolius L. Acta Oecologia 23:321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott CE, Grayston SJ, Helmisaari HS, Kaštovská E, Körner C, Lambers H, Meier IC, Millard P, Ostonen I (2020) Surplus carbon drives allocation and plant-soil interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 35:1110–1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Price CA, Enquist BJ, Savage VM (2007) A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:13204–13209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rudgers JA, Hallmark A, Baker SR, Baur L, Hall KM, Litvak ME, Muldavin EH, Pockman WT, Whitney KD (2019) Sensitivity of dryland plant allometry to climate. Funct Ecol 33:2290–2303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley B, Meziane D (2002) The balanced-growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation. Funct Ecol 16:326–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sides CB, Enquist BJ, Ebersole JJ, Smith MN, Henderson AN, Sloat LL (2014) Revisiting Darwin’s hypothesis: Does greater intraspecific variability increase species’ ecological breadth? Am J Bot 101:56–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DD (2020) Even when the seasons change our allometry stays the same. A Commentary on: “Corner’s rules pass the test of time: little effect of phenology on leaf-shoot and other scaling relationships.” Ann Bot 126:iii–iv

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DB (2019) Diet-induced plasticity of linear static allometry is not so simple for grasshoppers: genotype-environment interaction in ontogeny is masked by convergent growth. Integr Comp Biol 59:1382–1398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thornley JHM (1972) A balanced quantitative model for root: shoot ratios in vegetative plants. Ann Bot 36:431–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler A, Nijhout HF (2010) Developmental constraints on the evolution of wing-body allometry in Manduca sexta. Evol Dev 12:592–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dongen S, Lens L (2000) The evolutionary potential of developmental instability. J Evol Biol 13:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kleunen M, Fischer M (2005) Constraints on the evolution of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in plants. New Phytol 166:49–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vasseur F, Exposito-Alonso M, Ayala-Garay OJ, Wang G, Enquist BJ, Vile D, Violle C, Weigel D (2018) Adaptive diversification of growth allometry in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:3416–3421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vea IM, Shingleton AW (2020) Network-regulated organ allometry: the developmental regulation of morphological scaling. Wiley Interdiscip Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vizcaíno-Palomar N, Ibáñez I, González-Martínez SC, Zavala MA, Alía R (2016) Adaptation and plasticity in aboveground allometry variation of four pine species along environmental gradients. Ecol Evol 6:7561–7573

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Voje KL, Hansen TF, Egset CK, Bolstad GH, Pelabon C (2013) Allometric constraints and the evolution of allometry. Evolution 68:866–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington CH (1942) Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature 150(3811):563–565

  • Wang T-H (2006) The study of plant phenotypic plasticity and life-history strategies. Northeast Normal University, Changchun

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang T-H, Zhou D-W, Wang P, Zhang H-X (2006) Size-dependent reproductive effort in Amaranthus retroflexus: the fluence of planting density and sowing date. Can J Bot 84:485–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Li L, Zhou D-W (2017) Morphological plasticity in response to population density varies with soil conditions and growth stage in Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae). Plant Ecol 218:785–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Li L, Zhou D-W (2021) Root morphological responses to population density vary with soil conditions and growth stages: the complexity of density effects. Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160010745.59435642

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Callaway RM (2021) Plasticity in response to plant-plant interactions and water availability. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weijschedé J, MartínkováKroon JHd, Huber H (2006) Shade avoidance in Trifolium repens: costs and benefits of plasticity in petiole length and leaf size. New Phytol 172:655–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J (2004) Allocation, plasticity and allometry in plants. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 6:207–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Fishman L (1994) Competition and allometry in Kochia scoporia. Ann Bot 73:263–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Thomas SC (1992) Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology 73:648–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner J, Campbell LG, Pino J, Echarte L (2009) The allometry of reproduction within plant populations. J Ecol 97:1220–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins AS (1997) Canalization: a molecular genetic perspective. BioEssays 19:257–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright SD, McConnaughay KDM (2002) Interpreting phenotypic plasticity: the importance of ontogeny. Plant Species Biol 17:119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoda K, Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K (1963) Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J Biol Osaka City Univ 14:107–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou D-W, Wang T-H, Valentine I (2005) Phenotypic plasticity of life-history characters in response to different germination timing in two annual weeds. Can J Bot 83:28–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the reviewers and editors who provided substantial elaborate and valuable comments on this manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 31800335), Guizhou Province Science and Technology Planning Program (2019-1089), Guizhou University Talent Introduction Research Program (2017-39), and Ecology Domestic First-class Discipline Construction Program (GNYL2017-007) to SW.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Forestry, Forest Ecology Research Center, West Campus of Guizhou University, Guizhou University, Guiyang, 550025, China

    Shu Wang

  2. Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, 130102, China

    Dao-Wei Zhou

Authors
  1. Shu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dao-Wei Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. SW conducted the experiment, collected the data, and performed statistical analyses. The first draft of the manuscript was written and edited by SW. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interests have been declared.

Additional information

Communicated by Bradley J. Butterfield.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4

Table 4 One-way ANCOVAs on log-transformed mean values of the mass of different modules, with population density (PD) as effect, and another module as a covariate (CV) at 30, 50, and 70 days of plant growth and across all stages
Full size table

See Table 5

Table 5 One-way ANCOVAs on log-transformed mean values of the mass of different modules, with growth stage (GS) as effect, and another module as a covariate (CV) at low, medium, and high densities and across all densities
Full size table

See Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11

Fig. 5
figure 5

Mean total biomass (± SE) for plants at low (rectangle), medium (gray-filled rectangle), and high (black-filled rectangle) densities at 30, 50, and 70 days of growth. Different letters indicate significant differences among density treatments (LSD, P < 0.05)

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Mean values of root, stem, petiole, lamina (or leaf), reproduction, and branch mass for plants at low, medium, and high densities at 30, 50, and 70 days of growth. Different letters indicate significant differences among density treatments (LSD, P < 0.05)

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

The log10–log10 regressive relationships among the mass of different modules for individuals at low (green square), medium (red triangle), and high (black circle) densities at 30 d of plant growth. F values with significance levels (*P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01; from ANCOVAs on effects of density on a module with another module as a covariate) denote the significant differences between densities

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

The log10–log10 regressive relationships among the mass of different modules for individuals at low (green square), medium (red triangle), and high (black circle) densities at 50 d of plant growth. F values with significance levels (*P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01; from ANCOVAs on effects of density on a module with another module as a covariate) denote the significant differences between densities

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

The log10–log10 regressive relationships among the mass of different modules for individuals at low (green square), medium (red triangle), and high (black circle) densities at 70 d of plant growth. F values with significance levels (*P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01; from ANCOVAs on effects of density on a module with another module as a covariate) denote the significant differences between densities

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

The log10–log10 regressive relationships among the mass of different modules for individuals at low (green square), medium (red triangle), and high (black circle) densities across all growth stages. F values with significance levels (*P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01; from ANCOVAs on effects of density on a module with another module as a covariate) denote the significant differences between densities

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

The log10–log10 regressive relationships among the mass of different modules for individuals across all densities at 30 days (black circle), 50 days (red triangle), and 70 days (green square) of growth. F values with significance levels (*P < 0.10; **P < 0.05; ***P < 0.01; from ANCOVAs on effects of density on a module with another module as a covariate) denote the significant differences between densities

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S., Zhou, DW. Stage-dependent plasticity in biomass allocation and allometry in response to population density in Abutilon theophrasti: a step forward to understanding the nature of phenotypic plasticity. Plant Ecol 222, 1157–1181 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-021-01168-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-021-01168-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation