Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,787

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adaptation to Sun and Shade: a Whole-Plant Perspective

Open access
Givnish, TJ·1988·Australian Journal of Plant Physiology

Abstract

Whole-plant energy capture depends not only on the photosynthetic response of individual leaves, but also on their integration into an effective canopy, and on the costs of producing and maintaining their photosynthetic capacity. This paper explores adaptation to irradiance level in this context, focusing on traits whose significance would be elusive if considered in terms of their impact at the leaf level alone. I review traditional approaches used to demonstrate or suggest adaptation to irradiance level, and outline three energetic tradeoffs likely to shape such adaptation, involving the economics of gas exchange, support, and biotic interactions. Recent models using these tradeoffs to account for trends in leaf nitrogen content, stornatal conductance, phyllotaxis, and defensive allocations in sun v. shade are evaluated. A re-evaluation of the classic study of acclimation of the photosynthetic light response in Atriplex, crucial to interpreting adaptation to irradiance in many traits, shows that it does not completely support the central dogma of adaptation to sun v. shade unless the results are analysed in terms of whole-plant energy capture. Calculations for Liriodendron show that the traditional light compensation point has little meaning for net carbon gain, and that the effective compensation point is profoundly influenced by the costs of night leaf respiration, leaf construction, and the construction of associated support and root tissue. The costs of support tissue are especially important, raising the effective compensation point by 140 µmol m-2 s-1 in trees 1 m tall, and by nearly 1350 µmol m-2 s-1 in trees 30 m tall. Effective compensation points give maximum tree heights as a function of irradiance, and shade tolerance as a function of tree height; calculations of maximum permissible height in Liriodendron correspond roughly with the height of the tallest known individual. Finally, new models for the evolution of canopy width/height ratio in response to irradiance and coverage within a tree stratum, and for the evolution of mottled leaves as a defensive measure in understory herbs, are outlined.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/pp9880063

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,787

Metadata

Authors
Givnish, T.
Venue
Australian Journal of Plant Physiology
Published
1988-03-01
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
63-92
ISSN
  • 0310-7841 (ISSN-L)
  • 1446-5655
OpenAlex
W2136775576
Cited by
1,787
References
2
FWCI
16.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Adaptation to Sun and Shade: a Whole-Plant Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/pp9880063
The paper
Givnish, T. (1988). Adaptation to Sun and Shade: a Whole-Plant Perspective. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1071/pp9880063

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.