The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Growth responses of 15 rain‐forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits
Open accessAbstract
1. Growth of seedlings of 15 rain‐forest tree species was compared under controlled conditions, at six different light levels (3, 6, 12, 25, 50 and 100% daylight). 2. Most plant variables showed strong ontogenetic changes; they were highly dependent on the biomass of the plant. 3. Growth rate was highest at intermediate light levels (25–50%) above which it declined. Most plant variables showed a curvilinear response to irradiance, with the largest changes at the lowest light levels. 4. There was a consistent ranking in growth between species; species that were fast growing in a low‐light environment were also fast growing in a high‐light environment. 5. At low light, interspecific variation in relative growth rate was determined mainly by differences in a morphological trait, the leaf area ratio (LAR), whereas at high light it was determined mainly by differences in a physiological trait, the net assimilation rate (NAR). 6. NAR became a stronger determinant of growth than LAR in more than 10–15% daylight. As light availability in the forest is generally much lower than this threshold level, it follows that interspecific variation in growth in a forest environment is mainly owing to variation in morphology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Basin-wide variations in Amazon forest structure and function are mediated by both soils and climate
Quesada, C. A., Phillips, O. L., Schwarz, M., Czimczik, C. I., Baker, T. R., Patiño, S., Fyllas, N. M., Hodnett, M. G., Herrera, R., Almeida, S., et al. (2012) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-9-2203-2012 · Cited by 834
Baudry, O., Charmetant, C., Collet, C., & Ponette, Q. (2014) · European Journal of Forest Research · doi:10.1007/s10342-013-0746-6 · Cited by 48
Jakovac, A. C. C., Bentos, T. V., Mesquita, R. C. G., & Williamson, G. B. (2014) · Plant Ecology & Diversity · doi:10.1080/17550874.2012.716088 · Cited by 38
Wang, M. L., Jiang, Y. S., Wei, J. Q., Wei, X., Qi, X. X., Jiang, S. Y., & Wang, Z. M. (2008) · Photosynthetica · doi:10.1007/s11099-008-0004-1 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Poorter, L.
- Venue
- Functional Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 396-410
- ISSN
- 0269-8463 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2435
- OpenAlex
- W2131346365
- Cited by
- 701
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Growth responses of 15 rain‐forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00332.x
- The paper
- Poorter, L. (1999). Growth responses of 15 rain‐forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Functional Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00332.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.