Yield–density effects on growth and biomass partitioning in Leucaena leucocephala seedlings

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to study the effects of density on growth and biomass partitioning of Leucaena leucocephala seedlings. Four plantations with densities of 10,000, 20,000, 40,000, and 80,000 seedlings ha⁻¹ were evaluated only from 15 to 25 months after planting. At 15 months, crown height and width decreased with increasing density. Seedling height/dbh ratios increased with increasing density. Biomass increased with greater density according to the yield–density effect equation, which was evident for all densities. With increasing age, biomass division to branches and leaves increased, whereas partitioning to roots decreased in the 10,000 and 20,000 seedlings ha⁻¹ plantings. Partitioning to branches and leaves remained relatively steady, while partitioning to roots increased in the 40,000 and 80,000 seedlings ha⁻¹ plantings. Biomass division into stem and bark components remained relatively steady in all densities. Yield–density and organ yield–density curves shifted upward with increasing seedling age on a log–log graph throughout the experimental period.

Keywords

Competition / Leucaena leucocephala seedlings / Yield–density effect / Biomass partitioning

References

[1] Aikio S, Rämö K, Manninen S. Dynamics of biomass partitioning in two competing meadow plant species. Plant Ecol, 2009, 205: 129-137.

[2] Alcorn PJ, Pyttel P, Bauhus J, Smith RGB, Thomas D, James R, Nicotra A. Effects of initial planting density on branch development in 4-year-old plantation grown Eucalyptus pilularis and Eucalyptus cloeziana trees. For Ecol Manage, 2007, 252: 41-51.

[3] Ares A, Brauer D. Above ground biomass partitioning in loblolly pine silvopasture stands, spatial configuration and pruning effects. For Ecol Manage, 2005, 219: 176-184.

[4] Bernando A, Maria Reis L, Geraldo Reis GF, Robert Harrison G, Deuseles Firme BJ. Effect of spacing on growth and biomass distribution in Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. pellita, E. europhylla plantations in southeastern Brazil. For Ecol Manage, 1998, 104: 1-13.

[5] Bi H, Turner J, Lambert MJ. Additive biomass equations for native eucalypt forest trees of temperate Australia. Trees, 2004, 18(4): 467-479.

[6] Buckley DS (2002) Field performance of high-quality and standard northern red oak seedlings in Tennessee. In: Outcalt KW (ed) Proceedings of the 11th Biennial southern silvicultural research conference. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Reports SRS-48, pp 323–327

[7] Burkes EC, Will RE, Barron-Gafford GA, Teskey RO, Shiver B. Biomass partitioning and growth efficiency of intensively managed Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii stands of different planting densities. For Sci, 2003, 49(2): 224-234.

[8] Cahill JF. Lack of relationship between below-ground competition and allocation to roots in 10 grassland species. J Ecol, 2003, 91: 532-540.

[9] Comita LS, Muller-Landau HC, Aguilar S, Hubbell SP. Asymmetric density dependence shapes species abundances in a tropical tree community. Science, 2010, 329: 330-332.

[10] De Wit CT (1970) On the modeling of competitive phenomena. In: Proceedings of the advanced study institute on dynamics of numbers in populations, Oosterbeek, pp 269–281

[11] Ding F, Wang M, Zhang S, Ai X. Changes in SBPase activity influence photosynthetic capacity, growth, and tolerance to chilling stress in transgenic tomato plants. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 32741.

[12] Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science, 2002, 295: 1517-1520.

[13] Fang S, Xue J, Tang L. Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential in poplar plantations with different management patterns. J Environ Manage, 2007, 85: 672-679.

[14] Gargaglione V, Peri PL, Rubio G. Allometric relations for biomass partitioning of Nothofagus antarctica trees of different crown classes over a site quality gradient. For Ecol Manage, 2010, 259(6): 1118-1126.

[15] Grant JC, Nichols D, Pelletier MC, Glencross K, Bell R. Five year results from a mixed-species spacing trial with six sub tropical rainforest tree species. For Ecol Manage, 2006, 233: 309-314.

[16] Howell KD, Harrington TB (1998) Regeneration efficiency of bareroot oak seedlings subjected to various nursery and planting treatments. In: Waldrop TA (ed) Proceedings of the 9th Biennial southern silvicultural research conference, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Reports SRS-20, pp 222–226

[17] Hummel S. Height, diameter and crown dimensions of Cordia alliodora associated with tree density. For Ecol Manage, 2000, 127: 31-40.

[18] Japhet W, Zhou D, Zhang H, Zhang HX, Yu T. Evidence of phenotypic plasticity in the response of Fagopyrum esculentum to population density and sowing date. J Plant Biol, 2009, 52: 303-311.

[19] Jensen AM, Löf M, Gardiner ES. Effects of above- and below-ground competition from shrubs on photosynthesis, transpiration and growth in Quercus robur L. seedlings. Environ Exp Bot, 2011, 71: 367-375.

[20] Jiang HM, Liu GD, Zheng Y. Experiment on fodder yield of Leucaena under different planting densities. Pratacul Sci, 1990, 7(2): 70-72. (in Chinese with English summary)

[21] Kellomaki S, Oker-Blom P, Valtonen E, Vaisanen H. Structural development of scots pine stands with varying initial density: effect of pruning on branchiness of wood. For Ecol Manage, 1989, 27: 219-233.

[22] Kira T, Ogawa H, Hozumi K. Intraspecific competition among higher plant V. Supplementary notes on the C–D effect. J Inst Polytech Osaka City Univ Ser, 1956, D7: 1-14.

[23] Klootwijk T (2001) Modelling crown rise in Eucalyptus grandis (W Hill Ex Maiden) grown on the North Coast of New South Wales. Honours Thesis, p 105. School of Resources, Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra

[24] Lie GW, Xue L. Biomass allocation patterns in forests growing different climatic zones of China. Trees, 2016, 30: 639-646.

[25] Lie ZY, Wang ZM, Xue L. Effect of density of Tephrosia candida stands on soil characteristics. Legume Res, 2017, 40(3): 551-555.

[26] Litton CM, Ryan MG, Tinker DB, Kni DH. Belowground and aboveground biomass in young post-fire lodgepole pine forests of contrasting tree density. Can J For Res, 2003, 33: 351-363.

[27] Liu WD, Su JR. Effects of light acclimation on shoot morphology, structure, and biomass allocation of two Taxus species in southwestern China. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 35384.

[28] McCarthy MC, Enquist BJ. Consistency between an allometric approach and optimal partitioning theory in global patterns of plant biomass allocation. Funct Ecol, 2007, 21: 713-720.

[29] Mediavilla S, Escudero A. Differences in biomass allocation patterns between saplings of two co-occurring Mediterranean oaks as reflecting different strategies in the use of light and water. Eur J For Res, 2010, 129: 697-700.

[30] Mugwe J, Mucheru-Muna M, Mugendi D, Kung’u J, Bationo A, Mairura F. Adoption potential of selected organic resources for improving soil fertility in the central highlands of Kenya. Agrofor Syst, 2009, 76: 467-485.

[31] Neilsen WA, Gerrand AM. Growth and branching habit of Eucalyptus nitens at different spacings and the effect on final crop selection. For Ecol Manage, 1999, 123: 217-229.

[32] Nilsson U, Albrektson A. Productivity of needles and allocation of growth in young Scots pine trees of different competitive status. Fort Ecol Manag, 1993, 62: 173-187.

[33] Opie JE, Curtin RA, Incoll WD. Hillis WE, Brown AG. Stand management. Eucalypts for wood production, 1984, Melbourne: CSIRO 179 200

[34] Parresol BR. Assessing tree and stand biomass: a review with examples and critical comparisons. For Sci, 1999, 45(4): 573-593.

[35] Parresol BR. Additivity of nonlinear biomass equations. Can J For Res, 2001, 31(5): 865-878.

[36] Peichl M, Arain MA. Allometry and partitioning of above-and belowground tree biomass in an age-sequence of white pine forests. For Ecol Manage, 2007, 253(1–3): 68-80.

[37] Pinkard EA, Neilsen WA. Crown and stand characteristics of Eucalyptus nitens in response to initial spacing: implications for thinning. For Ecol Manage, 2003, 172: 215-227.

[38] Poorter L. Burslem DFRP, Pinard MA, Hartley SE. Resource capture and use by tropical forest tree seedlings and their consequences for competition. Biotic interactions in the tropics: their role in the maintenance of species diversity, 2005, New York: Cambridge University Press 35 64

[39] Poorter H, Remkes C, Lambers H. Carbon and nitrogen economy of twenty-four wild species differing in relative growth rate. Plant Physiol, 1990, 94: 621-627.

[40] Pottinger AJ, Hughes CE (1995) A review of wood quality in Leucaena. In: Shelton HM, Piggin CM, Brewbaker JL (eds) Leucaena opportunities and limitations: proceedings of a workshop held in Bangor, Indonesia, pp 98–102 . ACIAR Proceedings, Canberra

[41] Prasad JVNS, Korwar GR, Rao KV, Srinivas K, Rao CAR, Srinivasarao C, Venkateswarlu B, Rao SN, Kulkarni HD. Effect of modification of tree density and geometry on intercrop yields and economic returns in leucaena-based agro-forestry systems for wood production in Andhra Pradesh, Southern India. Exp Agric, 2010, 46(2): 155-172.

[42] Prasad JVNS, Korwar GR, Rao KV, Mandal UK, Rao GR, Srinivas I, Venkateswarlu B, Rao SN, Kulkarni HD. Optimum stand density of Leucaena leucocephala for wood production in Andhra Pradesh, Southern India. Biomass Bioenergy, 2011, 35: 227-235.

[43] Rao YV. Leucaena plantations—a farming experience. Leucaena Res Rep, 1984, 5: 48-49.

[44] Sevillano I, Short I, Grant J, O’Reilly C. Effects of light availability on morphology, growth and biomass allocation of Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur seedlings. For Ecol Manage, 2016, 374: 11-19.

[45] Shinozaki K, Kira T. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C–D effect. J Inst Polytech Osaka City Univ Ser, 1956, D7: 35-72.

[46] Toledo-Aceves T, Swaine MD. Biomass allocation and photosynthetic responses of lianas and pioneer tree seedlings to light. Acta Oecol, 2008, 34: 38-49.

[47] Vandermeer J. Plant competition and the yield–density relationship. J Theor Biol, 1984, 109: 393-399.

[48] Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev, 2006, 81: 259-291.

[49] Watkinson AR. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plants. J Theor Biol, 1980, 83: 345-357.

[50] Watkinson AR. Yield–density relationships: the influence of resource availability on growth and self-thinning in populations of Vulpia fasciculata. Ann Bot, 1984, 53: 469-482.

[51] Weigelt A, Steinlein T, Beyschlag W. Competition among three dune species: the impact of water availability on below-ground processes. Plant Ecol, 2005, 176: 57-68.

[52] Weiner J. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol, 1990, 5: 360-364.

[53] Wichman JR, Coggeshall MV. The effects of seedbed density and fertilization on 1–0 white oak nursery stock. Tree Plant Notes, 1983, 34: 13-16.

[54] Wichman JR, Coggeshall MV. Effects of seedbed density and fertilization on root-pruned 2–0 white oak nursery stock. Tree Plant Notes, 1984, 35: 22-24.

[55] Xing YN. A preliminary study on the planting density experiment of Leucaena leucocephala firewood forests. Trop Crop Res, 1986, 3: 58-60. (in Chinese)

[56] Xing YN, He XH. Report on a continuing study on the density experiment of Leucaena leucocephala firewood forests. Trop Crop Res, 1988, 2: 44-46. (in Chinese with English summary)

[57] Xu L, Diao YG, Li XM, Lin XG, Zhnag AH. Study on the effect of density adjustment of Leucaena leucocephala planations in Jing sha Dry-hot Valley. J Green Sci Technol, 2014, 6: 16-17, 19. (in Chinese)

[58] Xue L, Hagihara A. Growth analysis on the competition-density effect in Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) and Masson pine (Pinus massoniana) stands. For Ecol Manage, 2001, 150: 331-337.

[59] Xue L, Hagihara A. Density effects on tree organs in self-thinning Pinus densiflora Sieb. et Zucc. stands. Ecol Res, 2008, 23: 689-695.

[60] Xue L, Hagihara A. Growth analysis of the competition–density effect in non-self-thinning Populus deltoids and Populus × euramericana plantations. J For Res, 2008, 13: 241-248.

[61] Xue L, Feng HF, Chen FX. Time-trajectory of mean component weight and density in self-thinning Pinus densiflora stands. Eur J For Res, 2010, 129: 1027-1035.

[62] Xue L, Pan L, Zhang R, Xu PB. Density effects on the growth of self-thinning Eucalyptus urophylla stands. Trees, 2011, 25: 1021-1031.

[63] Xue L, Jacobs DF, Zeng SC, Liu B, Yang ZY, Gu SH. Relationship between aboveground biomass allocation and stand density index in Populus × euramericana stands. Forestry, 2012, 5: 611-619.

[64] Yang ZY, Xue Y, Xue L, Xu PB, Gu SH, Zhang R. Understory plants and soil characteristics in Acacia auriculiformis stands with different densities. Bull Soil Water Conserv, 2013, 33(3): 154-158. (in Chinese with English summary)

[65] Zhang Y, Dong XG, Xue L, Xiao LL, Zhu SM. Effect of young Tephrosia candida and Leucaena glauca plantations on soil fertility. Hunan For Sci Technol, 2015, 42(4): 6-9. (in Chinese with English summary)