ArticleOecologia2015
Bark ecology of twigs vs. main stems: functional traits across eighty-five species of angiosperms.
Article in Oecologia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Priorities for Bark Anatomical Research: Study Venues and Open Questions.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Nitrogen concentration and physical properties are key drivers of woody tissue respiration.Annals of botany · 2022Article
- Stem Trait Spectra Underpin Multiple Functions of Temperate Tree Species.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Physiological characterization of the wild almondFrontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Low-cost chamber design for simultaneous CO2 and O2 flux measurements between tree stems and the atmosphere.Tree physiology · 2021Article
- Chloroplast Distribution in the Stems of 23 Eucalypt Species.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- How Does Water Availability Affect the Allocation to Bark in a Mediterranean Conifer?Frontiers in plant science · 2019Article
- Factors controlling bark decomposition and its role in wood decomposition in five tropical tree species.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although produced by meristems that are continuous along the stem length, marked differences in bark morphology and in microenvironment would suggest that main stem and twig bark might differ ecologically. Here, we examined: (1) how closely associated main stem and twig bark traits were, (2) how these associations varied across sites, and (3) used these associations to infer functional and ecological differences between twig and main stem bark. We measured density, water content, photosynthesis presence/absence, total, outer, inner, and relative thicknesses of main stem and twig bark from 85 species of angiosperms from six sites of contrasting precipitation, temperature, and fire regimes. Density and water content did not differ between main stems and twigs across species and sites. Species with thicker twig bark had disproportionately thicker main stem bark in most sites, but the slope and degree of association varied. Disproportionately thicker main stem bark for a given twig bark thickness in most fire-prone sites suggested stem protection near the ground. The savanna had the opposite trend, suggesting that selection also favors twig protection in these fire-prone habitats. A weak main stem-twig bark thickness association was observed in non fire-prone sites. The near-ubiquity of photosynthesis in twigs highlighted its likely ecological importance; variation in this activity was predicted by outer bark thickness in main stems. It seems that the ecology of twig bark can be generalized to main stem bark, but not for functions depending on the amount of bark, such as protection, storage, or photosynthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25842297What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.