ArticleTree physiology2026
Growth patterns and climate sensitivity differ for understory and canopy trees.
Article in Tree physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While vertical forest structure is known to influence microclimatic conditions and tree growth, detailed knowledge of differences in seasonal growth dynamics between understory and canopy trees, especially at fine temporal scales, is still lacking. In this study, we compared growth dynamics of five temperate tree species (Picea abies, Fagus sylvatica, Carpinus betulus, Acer campestre, Ulmus laevis) based on sub-daily measurements from automatic band and pivotal dendrometers across four old-growth forests. Hourly growth probabilities were modelled using Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models (GLMMs) in relation to climatic conditions and day phases. Understory trees exhibited shorter growing seasons, accumulated fewer growing hours and displayed a less distinct diel growth rhythm than canopy trees. Nonetheless, when growth occurred, their growth rate per growing hour, normalized by stem diameter, was higher. However, overall growth remained constrained, likely because light availability limited the frequency or duration of such favorable periods, preventing consistent utilization of the buffered microclimatic conditions typical of the forest understory. The GLMMs successfully captured growth dynamics in canopy trees but performed poorly for understory trees, indicating lower dependency of their growth patterns on climatic conditions. Overall, our results show that understory tree growth is constrained primarily by limited light availability rather than by atmospheric conditions, leading to fewer growth periods that account for a larger proportion of the annual increment compared with canopy trees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.