The DOI matches its Crossref record.
SHADE TOLERANCE IN TREE SEEDLINGS: II. GROWTH ANALYSIS OF PLANTS RAISED UNDER ARTIFICIAL SHADE
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Seedlings of five tree species of different shade tolerance were raissed in 100, 44, 17 and 3% of natural daylight. Growth analysis was carried out on data obtained from two harvests during the growing season. The net assimilation rates (E) of the more tolerant species were little higher in 100% daylight than in slight shade (44% daylight), but thereafter E decreased as shade increased. The intolerant species had greatest E in 100% daylight, but this high E fell sharply with increasing shade, and in Populus tremuloides was negative in 3% daylight. Even in this deep shade, however, the intolerant Liriodendron tulipifera had as high a net assimilation rate as the shade‐tolerant species. Decreased E was offset by increased leaf area ratio (leaf area/plant weight), but in contrast to previous studies with herbaceous species, the magnitude of this increase gave no indication of the relative shade tolerance of the different species. In L. tulipifera and Acer rubrum, the increased leaf area ratio resulted from an increase in the proportion of assimilates diverted into leaf production (i.e. increased leaf weight ratio), together with a relatively greater increase in specific leaf area (leaf area/leaf weight). The more tolerant Fagus grandifolia and Quercus rubra showed less increase in specific leaf area, and leaf weight ratio increased only in the deepest shade. No clear‐cut distinction can be drawn between tolerant and intolerant species on the basis of the relative size or efficiency of their photosynthetic systems in low light; factors other than those relating to carbohydrate economy in shade, also play a role.
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
Grime, J. P. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283244 · Cited by 5,754
Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation
GRIME, J. P. (1973) · Nature · doi:10.1038/242344a0 · Cited by 2,507
Kitajima, K. (1994) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00324232 · Cited by 929
A theory of the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant communities
Smith, T., & Huston, M. (1989) · Vegetatio · doi:10.1007/bf00031680 · Cited by 537
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., Tjoelker, M. G., Vanderklein, D., & Buschena, C. (1998) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00209.x · Cited by 517
Metadata
- Authors
- LOACH, K.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1970-04
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 273-286
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2891949238
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.92
- 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: SHADE TOLERANCE IN TREE SEEDLINGS: II. GROWTH ANALYSIS OF PLANTS RAISED UNDER ARTIFICIAL SHADE. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1970.tb02426.x
- The paper
- LOACH, K. (1970). SHADE TOLERANCE IN TREE SEEDLINGS: II. GROWTH ANALYSIS OF PLANTS RAISED UNDER ARTIFICIAL SHADE. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1970.tb02426.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.