Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23114427›Full record

ArticleOecologia2013

Whole-canopy carbon gain as a result of selection on individual performance of ten genotypes of a clonal plant.

Peter J Vermeulen, Niels P R Anten, Josef F Stuefer, Heinjo J During

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter J VermeulenDepartment of Plant Ecology and Biodiversity, Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University, PO Box 80084, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands. peterjvermeulen@gmail.com
Niels P R Anten
Josef F Stuefer
Heinjo J During
Utrecht University · NLWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Game theoretical models predict that plant competition for light leads to reduced productivity of vegetation stands through selection for traits that maximize carbon gains of individuals. Using empirical results from a 5-year competition experiment with 10 genotypes of the clonal plant Potentilla reptans, we tested this prediction by analyzing the effects of the existing leaf area values on the carbon gain of the different genotypes and the consequent whole canopy carbon gain. We focused on specific leaf area (SLA) due to its role in the trade-off between light capture area and photosynthetic capacity per unit area. By combining a canopy model based on measured leaf area and light profiles with a game theoretical approach, we analyzed how changes in the SLA affected genotypic and whole-stand carbon gain. This showed that all genotypes contributed to reduced stand productivity. The dominant genotype maximized its share of total carbon gain, resulting in lower than maximal absolute gain. Other genotypes did not maximize their share. Hypothetical mutants of the dominant genotype were not able to achieve a higher carbon gain. Conversely, in other genotypes, some mutations did result in increased carbon gain. Hence, genotypic differences in the ability to maximize performance may determine genotype frequency. It shows how genotypic selection may result in lower carbon gains of the whole vegetation, and of the individual genotypes it consists of, through similar mechanisms as those that lead to the tragedy of the commons.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalCarbonGene FrequencyGenotypeLightMutationPhotosynthesisPlant LeavesPotentillaSelection, GeneticCarbon

Identifiers

PMID23114427
OpenAlexW1987846255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.