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?
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.
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
Cites
Nonparametric estimates of standard error: The jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods
EFRON, B. (1981) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/68.3.589 · Cited by 1,399
Cited by
Hartmann, H., & Trumbore, S. (2016) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13955 · Cited by 886
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiley, E., Huepenbecker, S., Casper, B. B., & Helliker, B. R.
- Venue
- Tree Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.