Trees and shrubs differ biomechanically

Wood density relates negatively to maximum plant height across major angiosperm and gymnosperm orders

PREMISE

Wood density is a crucial plant functional trait related to plant life history strategies. Its ecological importance in small-stature growth forms (e.g., shrubs) has not been extensively examined. Given that hydraulic conduit dimensions vary positively with plant height and that there is a negative relationship between conduits' diameter and wood density, I hypothesized an also negative relationship between wood density and plant height. Knowing that bark and pith proportions are significant in small-diameter stems, I additionally disentangled the contribution of wood, bark, and pith to stem density.

METHODS

I determined density in small-diameter stems across 153 species spanning all major angiosperm and gymnosperm orders by considering a diversity of growth forms (trees, treelets, shrubs, vines, and hemiparasites). Stem cross sections were dissected to consider the densities of wood with bark and pith; wood with pith and without bark; wood with bark and no pith; and wood without bark and pith. Secondary growth was also measured.

RESULTS

Trees showed similar wood densities as non-self-supporting vines, and both showed significantly less dense wood than treelets, shrubs, and hemiparasites. General comparisons showed that wood was significantly denser than all other tissues, and these differences did not depend on growth form. Wood density was significantly and negatively related to growth rate and pith area proportions but not to bark thickness proportion.

CONCLUSIONS

An implicit negative relationship between maximum plant height and stem density emerges as a property of plants likely linked to hydraulic conductive size.

What Would a Tree Say About Its Size?

When developing theories, designing studies, and interpreting the results, researchers are influenced by their perception of tree size. For example, we may compare two trees of the same size belonging to different species, and attribute any differences to dissimilarities between the species. However, the meaning of “same size” depends on the measures of size used. Wood density influences certain measures, such as biomass, but does not influence e.g., trunk diameter. Therefore, the choice of the measure of size can reverse any conclusions. Hence, it is import to consider which measure of size should be used. I argue that the most common measure of size, i.e., trunk diameter, is often a bad choice when wood density varies, as diameter is then not directly related to processes important in evolution. When trees with equal diameters but differing wood densities are compared, the tree with denser wood is larger if the measure of size is related to construction cost or trunk strength, a proxy of leaf area. From this perspective, the comparison is then conducted between a biologically larger heavy-wooded tree and a smaller light-wooded tree, and the differences between the trees may be caused by size instead of wood density. Therefore, trunk biomass and strength may often be more suitable measures of size, as they reflect the construction cost and biomechanical potency linked to leaf area crown height, often too challenging to estimate more directly. To assess how commonly inadequate measures of tree size have been used, I reviewed 10 highly cited journal articles. None of these 10 articles discussed the impact of wood density on biological size, and instead based the analyses on diameters or basal areas. This led to conclusions that could change or even reverse in an analysis based on biomass or strength. Overall, I do not suggest avoiding the use of diameter, but I recommend considering result sensitivity to the measure of size, particularly in studies ones with variable wood densities.

Modular, hollow culms of rain-forest bamboos explain their persistence across a wide range of light environments

Tropical bamboos persist in a wide range of light conditions and quickly respond to changes in light availability. However, the mechanisms underpinning this ability remain unknown. In order to test the hypothesis that the modular and hollow culm architecture of bamboos explains their performance in a wide range of light environments, we determined the allometric relationships of two dominant bamboo species of the upper hill dipterocarp forests of Malaysia, Gigantochloa ligulata (n = 29) and Schizostachyum grande (n = 25), via destructive sampling. We also monitored biomass turnover of bamboos and woody trees in 24 permanent plots (1.92 ha in total) over a one-year period. Compared with woody trees, bamboo culms attained 1.5 times the height and their clumps supported four times as much total leaf area at the same above-ground biomass. In addition, at a given height, bamboo clumps had six times larger crown projection area than trees while having a similar amount of total leaf area per unit of crown projection area. Finally, bamboos’ biomass turnover rate was three times higher than trees, and G. ligulata increased its specific rate of biomass increase after canopy disturbance, while trees decreased. We conclude that the unique architecture of bamboos allows them to persist under closed forest canopy light conditions and to respond to gap formation via high biomass turnover rate.

Why Be a Shrub? A Basic Model and Hypotheses for the Adaptive Values of a Common Growth Form

Shrubs are multi-stemmed short woody plants, more widespread than trees, important in many ecosystems, neglected in ecology compared to herbs and trees, but currently in focus due to their global expansion. We present a novel model based on scaling relationships and four hypotheses to explain the adaptive significance of shrubs, including a review of the literature with a test of one hypothesis. Our model describes advantages for a small shrub compared to a small tree with the same above-ground woody volume, based on larger cross-sectional stem area, larger area of photosynthetic tissue in bark and stem, larger vascular cambium area, larger epidermis (bark) area, and larger area for sprouting, and faster production of twigs and canopy. These components form our Hypothesis 1 that predicts higher growth rate for a small shrub than a small tree. This prediction was supported by available relevant empirical studies (14 publications). Further, a shrub will produce seeds faster than a tree (Hypothesis 2), multiple stems in shrubs insure future survival and growth if one or more stems die (Hypothesis 3), and three structural traits of short shrub stems improve survival compared to tall tree stems (Hypothesis 4)-all hypotheses have some empirical support. Multi-stemmed trees may be distinguished from shrubs by more upright stems, reducing bending moment. Improved understanding of shrubs can clarify their recent expansion on savannas, grasslands, and alpine heaths. More experiments and other empirical studies, followed by more elaborate models, are needed to understand why the shrub growth form is successful in many habitats.