Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of defoliation on carbon allocation: can carbon limitation reduce growth in favour of storage?

Wiley, E., Huepenbecker, S., Casper, B. B., Helliker, B. R.·2013·Tree Physiology

Abstract

There is no consensus about how stresses such as low water availability and temperature limit tree growth. Sink limitation to growth and survival is often inferred if a given stress does not cause non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) concentrations or levels to decline along with growth. However, trees may actively maintain or increase NSC levels under moderate carbon stress, making the pattern of reduced growth and increased NSCs compatible with carbon limitation. To test this possibility, we used full and half defoliation to impose severe and moderate carbon limitation on 2-year-old Quercus velutina Lam. saplings grown in a common garden. Saplings were harvested at either 3 weeks or 4 months after treatments were applied, representing short- and longer-term effects on woody growth and NSC levels. Both defoliation treatments maintained a lower total leaf area than controls throughout the experiment with no evidence of photosynthetic up-regulation, and resulted in a similar total biomass reduction. While fully defoliated saplings had lower starch levels than controls in the short term, half defoliated saplings maintained control starch levels in both the short and longer term. In the longer term, fully defoliated saplings had the greatest starch concentration increment, allowing them to recover to near-control starch levels. Furthermore, between the two harvest dates, fully and half defoliated saplings allocated a greater proportion of new biomass to starch than did controls. The maintenance of control starch levels in half defoliated saplings indicates that these trees actively store a substantial amount of carbon before growth is carbon saturated. In addition, the allocation shift favouring storage in defoliated saplings is consistent with the hypothesis that, as an adaptation to increasing carbon stress, trees can prioritize carbon reserve formation at the expense of growth. Our results suggest that as carbon limitation increases, reduced growth is not necessarily accompanied by a decline in NSC concentrations. Therefore, a lack of NSC decline may not be evidence that reduced tree growth under cold or water stress is caused by sink limitation.

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 · 10.1093/treephys/tpt093

Cites

1 of 1 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.

Metadata

Authors
Wiley, E., Huepenbecker, S., Casper, B. B., & Helliker, B. R.
Venue
Tree Physiology
Published
2013-11-01
Volume
33
Issue
11
Pages
1216-1228
ISSN
  • 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-4469
OpenAlex
W2159012581
Cited by
167
References
1
FWCI
5.54
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 effects of defoliation on carbon allocation: can carbon limitation reduce growth in favour of storage? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/tpt093
The paper
Wiley, E., Huepenbecker, S., Casper, B. B., & Helliker, B. R. (2013). The effects of defoliation on carbon allocation: can carbon limitation reduce growth in favour of storage? Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt093

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.