Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on March 24, 2005
Annals of Botany 2005 95(7):1211-1220; doi:10.1093/aob/mci133
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/7/1211    most recent
mci133v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by OSONE, Y.
Right arrow Articles by TATENO, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by OSONE, Y.
Right arrow Articles by TATENO, M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by OSONE, Y.
Right arrow Articles by TATENO, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Applicability and Limitations of Optimal Biomass Allocation Models: A Test of Two Species from Fertile and Infertile Habitats

YOKO OSONE*,{dagger} and MASAKI TATENO

Nikko Botanical Garden, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Nikko, Tochigi 321-1435, Japan

* For correspondence. E-mail osone{at}ffpri.affrc.go.jp

Received: 25 October 2004    Returned for revision: 21 December 2004    Accepted: 21 February 2005    Published electronically: 24 March 2005

Background and Aims The practical applicability of optimal biomass allocation models is not clear. Plants may have constraints in the plasticity of their root : leaf ratio that prevent them from regulating their root : leaf ratio in the optimal manner predicted by the models. The aim of this study was to examine the applicability and limitations of optimal biomass allocation models and to test the assumption that regulation of the root : leaf ratio enables maximization of the relative growth rate (RGR).

Methods Polygonum cuspidatum from an infertile habitat and Chenopodium album from a fertile habitat were grown under a range of nitrogen availabilities. The biomass allocation, leaf nitrogen concentration (LNC), RGR, net assimilation rate (NAR), and leaf area ratio (LAR) of each species were compared with optimal values determined using an optimal biomass allocation model.

Key Results The root : leaf ratio of C. album was smaller than the optimal ratio in the low-nitrogen treatment, while it was almost optimal in the high-nitrogen treatment. In contrast, the root : leaf ratio of P. cuspidatum was close to the optimum under both high- and low-nitrogen conditions. Owing to the optimal regulation of the root : leaf ratio, C. album in the high-nitrogen treatment and P. cuspidatum in both treatments had LNC and RGR (with its two components, NAR and LAR) close to their optima. However, in the low-nitrogen treatment, the suboptimal root : leaf ratio of C. album led to a smaller LNC than the optimum, which in turn resulted in a smaller NAR than the optimum and RGR than the theoretical maximum RGR.

Conclusions The applicability of optimal biomass allocation models is fairly high, although constraints in the plasticity of biomass allocation could prevent optimal regulation of the root : leaf ratio in some species. The assumption that regulation of the root : leaf ratio enables maximization of RGR was supported.

Key words: Chenopodium album, Polygonum cuspidatum, model, nitrogen, root : leaf ratio, biomass allocation, relative growth rate


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.