The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO 2 , nutrients and water: a quantitative review
Abstract
The allocation of biomass to different plant organs depends on species, ontogeny and on the environment experienced by the plant. In this paper we first discuss some methodological tools to describe and analyse the allocation of biomass. Rather than the use of shoot:root ratios, we plead strongly for a subdivision of biomass into at least three compartments: leaves, stems and roots. Attention is drawn to some of the disadvantages of allometry as a tool to correct for size differences between plants. Second, we tested the extent to which biomass allocation of plants follows the model of a ‘functional equilibrium’. According to this model, plants respond to a decrease in above-ground resources with increased allocation to shoots (leaves), whereas they respond to a decrease in below-ground resources with increased allocation to roots. We carried out a meta-analysis of the literature, analysing the effect of various environmental variables on the fraction of total plant biomass allocated to leaves (leaf mass fraction), stem (stem mass fraction) and roots (root mass fraction). The responses to light, nutrients and water agreed with the (qualitative) prediction of the ‘functional equilibrium’ theory. The notable exception was atmospheric CO2, which did not affect allocation when the concentration was doubled. Third, we analysed the quantitative importance of the changes in allocation compared to changes in other growth parameters, such as unit leaf rate (the net difference between carbon gain and carbon losses per unit time and leaf area), and specific leaf area (leaf area: leaf biomass). The effects of light, CO2 and water on leaf mass fractions were small compared to their effects on relative growth rate. The effects of nutrients, however, were large, suggesting that only in the case of nutrients, biomass allocation is a major factor in the response of plants to limiting resource supply.
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
Understanding plant responses to drought—from genes to the whole plant.
Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P., & Pereira, J. S. (2003) · Functional Plant Biology · doi:10.1071/fp02076 · Cited by 3,845
Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: A meta-analysis
Biederman, L. A., & Harpole, W. S. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12037 · Cited by 1,737
Evans, J. R., & Poorter, H. (2001) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00724.x · Cited by 1,229
Self-citationAllocation, plasticity and allometry in plants
Weiner, J. (2004) · Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00083 · Cited by 938
Herbivore impact on grassland plant diversity depends on habitat productivity and herbivore size
Bakker, E. S., Ritchie, M. E., Olff, H., Milchunas, D. G., & Knops, J. M. H. (2006) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00925.x · Cited by 545
Metadata
- Authors
- Poorter, H., & Nagel, O.
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2000-12-04
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1191-1191
- ISSN
- 0310-7841 (ISSN-L)
- 1446-5655
- OpenAlex
- W2122312969
- Cited by
- 1,234
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO 2 , nutrients and water: a quantitative review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/pp99173_co
- The paper
- Poorter, H., & Nagel, O. (2000). The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO 2 , nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1071/pp99173_co
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.