Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25842297›Full record

ArticleOecologia2015

Bark ecology of twigs vs. main stems: functional traits across eighty-five species of angiosperms.

Julieta A Rosell, Matiss Castorena, Claire A Laws, Mark Westoby

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Physiological characterization of the wild almondFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Julieta A RosellDepartamento de Ecología de la Biodiversidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510, México DF, Mexico, julieta.rosell@gmail.com.
Matiss Castorena
Claire A Laws
Mark Westoby

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

EcologyEcosystemFiresMagnoliopsidaPhotosynthesisPlant BarkPlant StemsSpecies SpecificityTreesWaterWater

Identifiers

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.