Advertisement

Effects of Stress and Defence Allocation on Tree Growth: Simulation Results at the Individual and Stand Level

  • T. Rötzer
  • T. Seifert
  • S. Gayler
  • E. Priesack
  • H. Pretzsch
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 220)

Abstract

Based on the eco-physiological, individual tree-based growth model BALANCE effects of defoliation and drought stress on growth, allocation and opportunity costs are analysed for pure and mixed stands of beech and spruce. Opportunity costs were incurred by beech trees in mixed stands that invested in stress defence. The losses due to competition varied with the proportion of available resources and were altered by investing and non-investing trees. Productivity of dominant beech and spruce trees was influenced more by decreasing resource availability (e.g. water) when compared to dominated trees. Under severe drought stress, however, for spruce a nearly constant loss of productivity for all size classes was obvious. Additionally, drought stress clearly changed the allocation patterns of beech and spruce trees. Overall, BALANCE is a useful tool for analysing influences of environmental changes on productivity and efficiency. It can help to map out adaption strategies to avoid negative consequences of environmental changes.

Keywords

Drought Stress Fine Root Opportunity Cost Tree Size Mixed Stand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barr AG, Black TA, Hogg EM, Griffis TJ, Morgenstern K, Kljun N, Theede A, Nesic Z (2007) Climatic controls on the carbon and water balances of a boreal aspen forest, 1994-2003. Glob Change Biol 13:561–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartelink HH (2000) A growth model for mixed forest stands. Forest Ecol Manage 134:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BayFORKLIM (1996) Klimaatlas Bayern. Fachbuchhandlung Kanzler, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzaz FA, Chiariello NR, Coley PD, Pitelka LF (1987) Allocating resources to reproduction and defense. Bioscience 37:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierkuhnlein C, Foken T (2008) Klimawandel in Bayern: Auswirkungen und Anpassungsmöglichkeiten. Bayreuther Forum Ökologie, vol 113, University Bayreuth, 501 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloom AJ, Chapin FS III, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants – an economic analogy. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392Google Scholar
  7. Bossel H (1996) TREEDYN3 forest simulation model. Ecol Model 90:187–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brubaker LB (1978) Effects of defoliation by Douglas-fir tussock moth on ring sequences of Douglas-fir and Grand fir. Tree Ring Bull 38:49–60Google Scholar
  9. Bruce D (1956) Effect of defoliation on growth of longleaf pine seedlings. Forest Sci 2:31–35Google Scholar
  10. Bruscheck GJ (1994) Waldgebiete und Waldbrandgeschehen in Brandenburg im Trockensommer 1992. PIK Rep 2:245–264Google Scholar
  11. Cermak J, Matyssek R, Kucera J (1993) Rapid response of large, drought-stressed beech trees to irrigation. Tree Physiol 12:281–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chalupa V (1965) Influence of the reduction of leaves on the beginning and course of radial growth. Commun Inst Forest Czech 4:61–73, Forest Abstr 27 no. 4580Google Scholar
  13. Chapin FS III (1980) The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:233–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chew FS, Rodman JE (1979) Plant resources for chemical defense. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, New York, pp 271–307Google Scholar
  15. Cienciala E, Lindorth A, Cermák J, Hällgren JE, Kucera J (1994) The effects of water availability on transpiration, water potential and growth of Picea abies during a growing season. J Hydrol 155:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS III (1985) Resource availability and plant herbivore defense. Science 230:895–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craighead FC (1940) Some effects of artificial defoliation on pine and larch. J Forest 38:885–888Google Scholar
  18. De Martonne E (1926) Une nouvelle fonction climatologique: L’indice d’aridité. La Meteorologie 2:449–458Google Scholar
  19. Dohrenbusch A, Jaehne S, Bredemeier M, Lamersdorf N (2002) Growth and fructification of a Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) forest ecosystem under changed nutrient and water input. Ann Forest Sci 59:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eissenstat DM (1997) Trade-offs in root form and functioning. In: Jackson LE (ed) Ecology in agriculture. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fontes L, Bontemps JD, Bugmann H, van Oijen M, Gracia C, Kramer K, Lindner M, Rötzer T, Skovsgaard JP (2010) Models for supporting forest management in a changing environment. Forest Syst 19:8–29Google Scholar
  22. Fournier C, Bauce E, Dupont A (2010) Wood losses and economical threshold of Btk aerial spray operation against spruce budworm. Pest Manag Sci 66:319–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frank DA (2007) Drought effects on above- and belowground production of a grazed temperate grassland ecosystem. Oecologia 152:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gayler S, Grams TEE, Kosivits AR, Winkler JB, Luedemann G, Priesack E (2006) Analysis of competition effects in mono- and mixed cultures of juvenile beech and spruce by means of the plant growth simulation model PLATHO. Plant Biol 8:503–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grams TEE, Kozovits AR, Reiter IM, Winkler JB, Sommerkorn M, Blaschke H, Häberle K-H, Matyssek R (2002) Quantifying competitiveness in woody plants. Plant Biol 4:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grote R (2002) Estimation of crown radii and crown projection area from stem size and tree position. Ann Forest Sci 60:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grote R, Pretzsch H (2002) A model for individual tree development based on physiological processes. Plant Biol 4(2):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grünwald T, Bernhofer C (2007) A decade of carbon, water and energy flux measurements of an old spruce forest at the Anchor Station Tharandt. Tellus 59B(3):387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guehl JM, Fort C, Ferhi A (1995) Differential response of leaf conductance, carbon isotope discrimination and water use efficiency to nitrogen deficiency in maritime pine and pedunculate oak plants. New Phytol 131:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gulmon SL, Mooney HA (1986) Costs of defense and their effects on plant productivity. In: Givnish TJ (ed) On the economy of plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 681–698Google Scholar
  31. Häberle K-H, Nunn AJ, Reiter IM, Werner H, Heller W, Bahnweg G, Gayler S, Lütz C, Matyssek R (2009) Variation of defence-related metabolites in the foliage of adult beech and spruce: a conceptual approach to approximating trade-off carbon. Eur J Forest Res 128:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton JG, Zangerl AR, DeLucia EH, Berenbaum MR (2001) The carbon-nutrient balance hypothesis: its rise and fall. Ecol Lett 4:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or to defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kellomäki S, Väisinen H, Strandman H (1993) FINNFOR: a model for calculating the response of boreal forest ecosystems to climate change. Research notes, no. 6. University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finnland, 120 pGoogle Scholar
  35. Knoke T, Seifert T (2008) Integrating selected ecological effects of mixed European beech – Norway spruce stands in bioeconomic modelling. Ecol Model 210:487–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Konopka B, Noguchi K, Sakata T, Takahashi M, Konopkova Z (2007) Effects of simulated drought stress on the fine roots of Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) in a plantation forest on the Kanto Plain, eastern Japan. J Forest Res 12:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koricheva J (2002) Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses. Ecology 83(1):176–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krause SC, Raffa KF (1996) Differential growth and recovery rates following defoliation in related deciduous and evergreen trees. Trees 10:308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kulman HM (1971) Effects of insect defoliation on growth and mortality of trees. Annu Rev Entomol 16:289–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landsberg JJ, Waring RH (1997) A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. Forest Ecol Manage 95:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larcher W (2003) Physiological plant ecology. Springer, Berlin, 513 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee TD, Bazzaz FA (1980) Effects of defoliation and competition on growth and reproduction in the annual plant Abutilon theophrasti. J Ecol 68:813–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leuschner Ch, Backes K, Hertel D, Schipka F, Schmitt U, Terborg O, Runge M (2001) Drought responses at leaf, stem and fine root levels of competitive Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. trees in dry and wet years. Forest Ecol Manage 149:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mainiero R, Kazda M (2006) Depth-related fine root dynamics of Fagus sylvatica during exceptional drought. Forest Ecol Manage 237:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McNaughton SJ (1983) Compensatory plant growth as a response to herbivory. Oikos 40:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Menon M, Hermle S, Günthardt-Goerg MS, Schulin R (2007) Effects of heavy metal soil pollution and acid rain on growth and water use efficiency of a young model forest ecosystem. Plant Soil 297:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mohren GMJ, van de Veen JR (1995) Forest growth in relation to site conditions. Application of the model FORGRO to the Solling spruce site. Ecol Model 83:73–183Google Scholar
  48. Neilsen WA (1981) Effect of simulated browsing on survival and growth of Pinus radiata (D. Don) seedlings. Aust Forest Res 11:47–53Google Scholar
  49. Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ (2002) Canonical rules for plant biomass partitioning and annual allocation. Am J Bot 89:812–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nikolova P, St R, Andersen C, Mainiero R, Blaschke H, Matyssek R, Häberle K-H (2009) Effects of extreme drought in 2003 on soil respiration in a mixed forest. Eur J Forest Res 128:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noguchi K, Konopka B, Satomura T, Kaneko S, Takahashi M (2007) Biomass and production of fine roots in Japanese forests. J Forest Res 12:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ogaya R, Penuelas J (2007) Tree growth, mortality, and above-ground biomass accumulation in a holm oak forest under a five-year experimental field drought. Plant Ecol 189:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peterken CF, Mountford EP (1996) Effects of drought on beech in Lady Park Wood, an unmanaged mixed deciduous woodland. Forestry 69:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pichler P, Oberhuber W (2007) Radial growth response of coniferous forest trees in an inner Alpine environment to heat-wave in 2003. Forest Ecol Manage 242:688–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Polomski J, Kuhn N (1998) Wurzelsysteme. Birmensdorf, Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft. Paul Haupt, Bern, 290 pGoogle Scholar
  56. Pretzsch H (1997) Analysis an modeling of spatial stand structure. Methodological considerations based on mixed beech-larch stands in Lower Saxony. Forest Ecol Manage 95:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield. Springer, Berlin, 664 pGoogle Scholar
  58. Pretzsch H, Grote R, Reineking B, Rötzer T, Seifert S (2008) Models for forest ecosystem management: a European perspective. Ann Bot 101:1065–1087PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Rausher MD (1996) Genetic analysis of coevolution between plants and their natural enemies. Trends Genet 12:212–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rhoades DF (1979) Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic, Orlando, FL, pp 3–54Google Scholar
  61. Rötzer T, Grote R, Pretzsch H (2004) The timing of bud burst and its effects on tree growth. Int J Biometeorol 48:109–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rötzer T, Grote R, Pretzsch H (2005) Effects of environmental changes on the vitality of forest stands. Eur J Forest Res 124:349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rötzer T, Seifert T, Pretzsch H (2009) Modelling above and below ground carbon dynamics in a mixed beech and spruce stand influenced by climate. Eur J Forest Res 128:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rötzer T, Leuchner M, Nunn AJ (2010) Simulating stand climate, phenology, and photosynthesis of a forest stand with a process based growth model. Int J Biometeorol 54(4):449–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Running SW, Coughlan JC (1988) A general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications 1. Hydrological balance, canopy gas exchange, and primary production processes. Ecol Model 42:125–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seifert T (2007) A simulation model to determine the extent of decay in stems of Norway spruce caused by annosum root rot. Forest Ecol Manage 248:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seifert T, Müller-Starck G (2009) Impacts of fructification on biomass production and correlated genetic effects in Norway spruce (Picea abies L. [Karst.]). Eur J Forest Res 128(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simms EL (1992) Costs of plant resistance to herbivory. In: Fritz RS, Simms EL (eds) Plant resistance to herbivores and pathogens: ecology, evolution and genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp 392–425Google Scholar
  69. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78(1):23–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tyree MT, Alexander JD (1993) Plant water relations and the effects of elevated CO2: a review and suggestions for future research. Vegetatio 104(105):47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vivin P, Guehl JM (1997) Changes in carbon uptake and allocation patterns in Quercus robur seedlings in response to elevated CO2 and water stress: an evaluation with 13C labelling. Ann Forest Sci 54:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vogt KA, Vogt DJ, Palmitto PA, Boon P, O'Hara J, Asbjornsen H (1996) Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type and species. Plant Soil 187:159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Rötzer
    • 1
  • T. Seifert
    • 2
  • S. Gayler
    • 3
  • E. Priesack
    • 4
  • H. Pretzsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Forest Growth and Yield ScienceTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Department of Forest and Wood ScienceStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  3. 3.Water & Earth System Science Competence ClusterUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Soil EcologyHelmholtz Zentrum MünchenNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations