Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass.

The size-dependent variations of plant height L and mass M with respect to basal stem diameter D are important to the analysis of a broad range of ecological and evolutionary phenomena. Prior examination of some of the world's largest trees suggests that the scaling relationships L alpha D(2/3) and M alpha D(8/3) hold true, ostensibly as functional adaptations for mechanical stability. This concept remains engrained in the literature in the form of null hypotheses (or predictive models), despite numerous examples showing that the 2/3 and 8/3 rules are violated by small and intermediate-sized plants. Here, we present a growth-hydraulic model that provides more accurate and biologically realistic predictions of L and M. This model also sheds light on why L, D, and M scale differently across species and habitats as a result of differences in absolute size.

[1]  Ben Bond-Lamberty,et al.  Aboveground and belowground biomass and sapwood area allometric equations for six boreal tree species of northern Manitoba , 2002 .

[2]  James H. Brown,et al.  A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology , 1997, Science.

[3]  K J Niklas,et al.  Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Stephen P. Hubbell,et al.  Diameter, Height, Crown, and Age Relationship in Eight Neotropical Tree Species , 1995 .

[5]  M Franco,et al.  The interspecific mass-density relationship and plant geometry. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  M. Patterson,et al.  A Mass Transfer Explanation of Metabolic Scaling Relations in Some Aquatic Invertebrates and Algae , 1992, Science.

[7]  T. McMahon,et al.  Tree structures: deducing the principle of mechanical design. , 1976, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  Paul J. Kramer,et al.  Water Relations of Plants , 1983 .

[9]  Karl J. Niklas,et al.  Botanical Scaling. (Book Reviews: Plant Allometry. The Scaling of Form and Process.) , 1994 .

[10]  K. Niklas.  Size-dependent Allometry of Tree Height, Diameter and Trunk-taper , 1995 .

[11]  Karl J Niklas,et al.  Global Allocation Rules for Patterns of Biomass Partitioning in Seed Plants , 2002, Science.

[12]  Karl J. Niklas,et al.  Plant Biomechanics: An Engineering Approach to Plant Form and Function , 1993 .

[13]  L. Alves,et al.  Tree allometry and crown shape of four tree species in Atlantic rain forest, south-east Brazil , 2002, Journal of Tropical Ecology.

[14]  P. J. Edwards,et al.  World Forest Biomass and Primary Production Data. , 1983 .

[15]  O. Loucks,et al.  The theory of tree bole and branch form , 1978, Radiation and environmental biophysics.

[16]  George W. Koch,et al.  The limits to tree height , 2004, Nature.

[17]  J J Blum,et al.  On the geometry of four-dimensions and the relationship between metabolism and body mass. , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[18]  Francis E. Putz,et al.  INFLUENCE OF NEIGHBORS ON TREE FORM: EFFECTS OF LATERAL SHADE AND PREVENTION OF SWAY ON THE ALLOMETRY OF LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (SWEET GUM) , 1989 .