Interpreting phenotypic variation in plants.

Plant ecologists and evolutionary biologists frequently examine patterns of phenotypic variation across variable environments or genetic identities. Too often, we ignore the fact that most phenotypic traits change throughout growth and development of individual plants, and that rates of growth and development are highly variable. Plants growing in different environments are likely to grow at different rates, and will be of different sizes and stages of development at a particular age. When we compare plants as a function of plant size or developmental stage, as well as a function of age, we broaden our understanding of phenotypic variation between plants.

[1]  A. P. Hughes,et al.  PLANT GROWTH AND THE AERIAL ENVIRONMENT. II. EFFECTS OF LIGHT INTENSITY ON IMPATIENS PARVIFLORA , 1962 .

[2]  P. Jolicoeur.  A simplified model for bivariate complex allometry. , 1989, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  Catherine Potvin,et al.  THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF ECOPHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE CURVES OBTAINED FROM EXPERIMENTS INVOLVING REPEATED MEASURES , 1990 .

[4]  A. Knapp,et al.  Influence of plant size on the carbon and water relations of Cucurbita foetidissima HBK , 1990 .

[5]  W. Corré.  GROWTH AND MORPHOGENESIS OF SUN AND SHADE PLANTS I. THE INFLUENCE OF LIGHT INTENSITY , 1983 .

[6]  G. Evans,et al.  The quantitative analysis of plant growth , 1972 .

[7]  S. Sultan.  Evolutionary Implications of Phenotypic Plasticity in Plants , 1987 .

[8]  Developmental Physiology of Sugar Beet: I. THE INFLUENCE OF LIGHT AND TEMPERATURE ON GROWTH , 1968 .

[9]  D. Hilbert,et al.  Optimization of Plant Root: Shoot Ratios and Internal Nitrogen Concentration , 1990 .

[10]  J. P. Grime,et al.  An Experimental Test of Plant Strategy Theory , 1992 .

[11]  J. P. Grime,et al.  MORPHOLOGICAL PLASTICITY AND MINERAL NUTRIENT CAPTURE IN TWO HERBACEOUS SPECIES OF CONTRASTED ECOLOGY. , 1987, The New phytologist.

[12]  Harold A. Mooney,et al.  Responses of Plants to Multiple Stresses , 1993 .

[13]  A. Troughton.  STUDIES ON THE GROWTH OF YOUNG GRASS PLANTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHOOT AND ROOT SYSTEMS , 1956 .

[14]  Poethig Rs,et al.  Phase change and the regulation of shoot morphogenesis in plants. , 1990 .

[15]  P. Klinkhamer,et al.  On the analysis of size-dependent reproductive output in plants , 1992 .

[16]  F. Bormann,et al.  The Distribution of Dry Matter Growth between Shoot and Roots in Loblolly Pine , 1970, Botanical Gazette.

[17]  F. A. Bazzaz,et al.  How neighbor canopy architecture affects target plant performance , 1993 .

[18]  H. Mooney,et al.  Resource Limitation in Plants-An Economic Analogy , 1985 .

[19]  P. Marks,et al.  STAND STRUCTURE AND ALLOMETRY OF TREES DURING SELF-THINNING OF PURE STANDS , 1978 .

[20]  H. Poorter,et al.  Growth and carbon economy of a fast- growing and a slow-growing grass species as dependent on ontogeny , 1992 .

[21]  R. Mead,et al.  Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology , 1994 .

[22]  J. Bernardo,et al.  Determinants of maturation in animals. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  D. Samson,et al.  Size-Dependent Effects in the Analysis of Reproductive Effort in Plants , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[24]  J. Coleman,et al.  CO_2 and Temperature Effects on Leaf Area Production in Two Annual Plant Species , 1992 .

[25]  A. P. Hughes,et al.  PLANT GROWTH AND THE AERIAL ENVIRONMENT , 1961 .

[26]  F. A. Bazzaz,et al.  The Response of Natural Ecosystems to the Rising Global CO2 Levels , 1990 .

[27]  R. Hunt.  Basic growth analysis. , 1990 .

[28]  D. Tilman.  Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. (MPB-26), Volume 26 , 1988 .