Consistency between an allometric approach and optimal partitioning theory in global patterns of plant biomass allocation

Summary 1Optimal partitioning theory (OPT) suggests that plants should allocate biomass to the organ that acquires the most limiting resource. An implied assumption of this is that there are trade-offs in allocation between leaf, stem and root functions. 2Recently, an alternative approach, allometric biomass partitioning theory (APT), was developed to predict how plants should divide their metabolic production between leaves, stems and roots, based on the constraints of body size. APT predicts that, for an allometrically ideal plant, leaf mass should scale to the 3/4th power of body size, and stem and root mass should scale isometrically to body size. 3In this study, we combine OPT with APT by investigating biomass partitioning not accounted for by allometric constraints across broad environmental gradients. 4Intraspecific variability in biomass allocation shows correlations with environmental factors that would be predicted by OPT. However, interspecifically, these patterns either do not appear or are greatly reduced. 5Our study suggests that, after size is accounted for, intraspecific residual variation in biomass allocation may be partially explained by environmental factors in a manner consistent with OPT. However, the particular patterns vary between species, obscuring large-scale patterns. 6In summary, differences due to environmental variability can be incorporated with allocation patterns related to total mass to help understand how plants should allocate biomass in response to changes in both size and environment.

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

[2]  R. Hunt,et al.  The Effects of Light Intensity and External Potassium Level on Root/Shoot Ratio and Rates of Potassium Uptake in Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) , 1973 .

[3]  Y. Iwasa Dynamic optimization of plant growth , 2000 .

[4]  G. Ågren,et al.  The Influence of Plant Nutrition on Biomass Allocation. , 1991, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  Allen,et al.  Stand-level allometry in Pinus taeda as affected by irrigation and fertilization. , 1999, Tree physiology.

[6]  J. Thornley A Balanced Quantitative Model for Root: Shoot Ratios in Vegetative Plants , 1972 .

[7]  J. Weiner,et al.  The effect of nutrient availability on biomass allocation patterns in 27 species of herbaceous plants , 2000 .

[8]  B. Shipley,et al.  The balanced‐growth hypothesis and the allometry of leaf and root biomass allocation , 2002 .

[9]  D. Robinson Scaling the depths: below‐ground allocation in plants, forests and biomes , 2004 .

[10]  R. Peters The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

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

[12]  K. Niklas,et al.  Canonical rules for plant organ biomass partitioning and annual allocation. , 2002, American journal of botany.

[13]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Bioinformatics Applications Note Phylocom: Software for the Analysis of Phylogenetic Community Structure and Trait Evolution , 2022 .

[14]  Y. Osone,et al.  Applicability and limitations of optimal biomass allocation models: a test of two species from fertile and infertile habitats. , 2005, Annals of botany.

[15]  Mikael Akke,et al.  Global Allocation Rules for Patterns of Biomass Partitioning , 2002, Science.

[16]  P. Grubb,et al.  Morphological plasticity of shade‐tolerant tropical rainforest tree seedlings exposed to light changes , 2004 .

[17]  J. Grace,et al.  Plant resource allocation , 1998 .

[18]  P. Reich Root–Shoot Relations: Optimality in Acclimation and Adaptation or the ‘‘Emperor’s New Clothes’’? , 2002 .

[19]  A. Kerkhoff,et al.  Organ Partitioning and Distribution across the Seed Plants: Assessing the Relative Importance of Phylogeny and Function , 2007, International Journal of Plant Sciences.

[20]  J. Coleman,et al.  Biomass allocation in old‐field annual species grown in elevated CO2 environments: no evidence for optimal partitioning , 2000 .

[21]  J. Coleman,et al.  A non-functional interpretation of a classical optimal-partitioning example , 1995 .

[22]  P. Reich,et al.  Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high‐ and low‐rainfall and high‐ and low‐nutrient habitats , 2001 .

[23]  M. Hulme,et al.  A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas , 2002 .

[24]  Thomas J. Givnish,et al.  Adaptation to Sun and Shade: a Whole-Plant Perspective , 1988 .

[25]  G. Goldstein,et al.  Leaf photosynthetic traits scale with hydraulic conductivity and wood density in Panamanian forest canopy trees , 2004, Oecologia.

[26]  F. S. Chapin,et al.  The Mineral Nutrition of Wild Plants , 1980 .

[27]  Mark G. Tjoelker,et al.  Close association of RGR, leaf and root morphology, seed mass and shade tolerance in seedlings of nine boreal tree species grown in high and low light , 1998 .

[28]  J. W. Crist,et al.  RELATION BETWEEN TOP AND ROOT SIZE IN HERBACEOUS PLANTS. , 1929, Plant physiology.

[29]  William M. Schaffer,et al.  Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities , 1989 .

[30]  P. Reich,et al.  From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant functioning. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. , 1980 .

[33]  J. Coleman,et al.  Interpreting phenotypic variation in plants. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[34]  R. L. Davidson Effect of Root/Leaf Temperature Differentials on Root/Shoot Ratios in Some Pasture Grasses and Clover , 1969 .