Beyond bark thickness: multifunctional explanations for variations in relative bark allocation in temperate forest trees

Abstract

While the fire protection function of tree bark has been extensively documented, other critical functions, including storage and mechanical support, have received less attention. In this study we examined: (1) the allometry of bark thickness (and biomass) against wood radius (and biomass) at a disc level, (2) differences in bark allocation between the ratio and the regression approaches, (3) differences between bark thickness and biomass as metrics of bark allocation, and (4) how bark allocation is associated with the evolution of wood from non-porous to diffuse-porous and ring-porous types. Thickness and biomass of bark and wood were measured using trunk discs of 88 individual trees of 36 species in a temperate forest characterized by a long fire interval. Allometric relationships of bark thickness (and biomass) against wood radius (and biomass) explained why both relative bark thickness and biomass decreased with increasing stem diameter. Variations in both among species varied by factors of 3.5 to 7.5 depending on the measurement methods. The ratio approach produced higher estimates of both relative bark thickness and biomass compared to the regression approach, while relative bark thickness was significantly lower than relative bark biomass. Ring-porous species exhibited higher bark thickness based on the ratio approach, which might reflect evolutionary adaptations where ring-porous species have developed thicker bark as protection: thermal insulation against freeze–thaw embolism coupled with carbohydrate reservoirs for hydraulic repair. The regression slope of bark allocation against wood density increased along the wood porosity gradient, demonstrating evolutionary biomechanical coordination between bark and wood. These findings highlight systematic coupling between bark and xylem multifunctionality.

Keywords

Bark thickness / Stem diameter / Relative bark thickness / Relative bark biomass / Bark allocation

References

[1] ChaveJ, CoomesD, JansenS, LewisSL, SwensonNG, ZanneAE. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol Lett, 2009, 12(4): 351-366

[2] CornelissenJHC, LavorelS, GarnierE, DíazS, BuchmannN, GurvichDE, ReichPB, ter SteegeH, MorganHD, van der HeijdenMGA, PausasJG, PoorterH. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot, 2003, 51(4): 335-380

[3] DominguezPG, NiittyläT. Mobile forms of carbon in trees: metabolism and transport. Tree Physiol, 2022, 42(3): 458-487

[4] DongHJ, WangXC, YuanDY, LiuD, LiuYL, SangY, WangXC. Radial distribution differences of non-structural carbohydrates in stems of tree species of different wood in a temperate forest. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2022, 46(6): 722-734 in Chinese

[5] HempsonGP, MidgleyJJ, LawesMJ, VickersKJ, KrugerLM. Comparing bark thickness: testing methods with bark-stem data from two South African fire-prone biomes. J Veg Sci, 2014, 25(5): 1247-1256

[6] JinY, WangCK. Leaf hydraulic traits and their trade-offs for nine Chinese temperate tree species with different wood properties. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2016, 40(7): 702-710 in Chinese

[7] JupaR, RosellJA, PittermannJ. Bark structure is coordinated with xylem hydraulic properties in branches of five Cupressaceae species. Plant Cell Environ, 2024, 47(5): 1439-1451

[8] LawesMJ, MidgleyJJ, ClarkePJ. Costs and benefits of relative bark thickness in relation to fire damage: a savanna/forest contrast. J Ecol, 2013, 101(2): 517-524

[9] LiYR, WangXC, WangCK, LiuF, ZhangQZ. Spatial variation in diurnal courses of stem temperature of Betula platyphylla and Fraxinus mandshurica and its influencing factors. J Appl Ecol, 2017, 28(10): 3197-3207 in Chinese

[10] LiZM, LuoDD, IbrahimMM, HouEQ, WangCK. Adaptive strategies to freeze-thaw cycles in branch hydraulics of tree species coexisting in a temperate forest. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2024, 206, 108223

[11] Loram-LourençoL, FarneseFDS, de SousaLF, AlvesRDFB, de AndradeMCP, AlmeidaSEDS, MouraLMF, CostaAC, SilvaFG, GalmésJ, CochardH, FrancoAC, Menezes-SilvaPE. A structure shaped by fire, but also water: ecological consequences of the variability in bark properties across 31 species from the Brazilian cerrado. Front Plant Sci, 2020, 10: 1718

[12] MacFarlaneDW. Highly variable bark-wood density relationships across tree species reflect tradeoffs in evolved tolerances to environmental stressors. Trees, 2024, 38(5): 1223-1239

[13] Martín-SanzRC, San-MartínR, PoorterH, VázquezA, ClimentJ. How does water availability affect the allocation to bark in a Mediterranean conifer?. Front Plant Sci, 2019, 10: 607

[14] MidgleyJJ, LawesMJ. Relative bark thickness: towards standardised measurement and analysis. Plant Ecol, 2016, 217(6): 677-681

[15] NeumannM, LawesMJ. Quantifying carbon in tree bark: the importance of bark morphology and tree size. Methods Ecol Evol, 2021, 12(4): 646-654

[16] NickolasH, WilliamsD, DownesG, HarrisonPA, VaillancourtRE, PottsBM. Application of resistance drilling to genetic studies of growth, wood basic density and bark thickness in Eucalyptus globulus. Aust for, 2020, 83(3): 172-179

[17] PaineCET, StahlC, CourtoisEA, PatiñoS, SarmientoC, BaralotoC. Functional explanations for variation in bark thickness in tropical rain forest trees. Funct Ecol, 2010, 24(6): 1202-1210

[18] PanJ, ZhangJ, WangXC, WangXW, WangQ, LiuYK, LiuYL, DiaoYF, QuanXK, WangCK, WangXC. Variations and determinants of tissue carbon concentration of 32 sympatric temperate tree species. J For Res, 2024, 35(1): 113

[19] PausasJG. Bark thickness and fire regime. Funct Ecol, 2015, 29(3): 315-327

[20] PausasJG. Evolutionary fire ecology: lessons learned from pines. Trends Plant Sci, 2015, 20(5): 318-324

[21] PausasJG. Bark thickness and fire regime: another twist. New Phytol, 2017, 213(1): 13-15

[22] Pérez-HarguindeguyN, DíazS, GarnierE, LavorelS, PoorterH, JaureguiberryP, Bret-HarteMS, CornwellWK, CraineJM, GurvichDE, UrcelayC, VeneklaasEJ, ReichPB, PoorterL, WrightIJ, RayP, EnricoL, PausasJG, de VosAC, BuchmannN, FunesG, QuétierF, HodgsonJG, ThompsonK, MorganHD, ter SteegeH, SackL, BlonderB, PoschlodP, VaierettiMV, ContiG, StaverAC, AquinoS, CornelissenJHC. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot, 2013, 61(3): 167

[23] PoorterL, McNeilA, HurtadoVH, PrinsHHT, PutzFE. Bark traits and life-history strategies of tropical dry- and moist forest trees. Funct Ecol, 2014, 28(1): 232-242

[24] RetiefE, StangerTK. Genetic control of wood density and bark thickness, and their correlations with diameter, in pure and hybrid populations of Eucalyptus grandis and E urophyllain South Africa. South For J For Sci, 2009, 71(2): 147-153

[25] RichardsonSJ, LaughlinDC, LawesMJ, HoldawayRJ, WilmshurstJM, WrightM, CurranTJ, BellinghamPJ, McGloneMS. Functional and environmental determinants of bark thickness in fire-free temperate rain forest communities. Am J Bot, 2015, 102(10): 1590-1598

[26] RosellJA. Bark in woody plants: understanding the diversity of a multifunctional structure. Integr Comp Biol, 2019, 59(3): 535-547

[27] RosellJA, CastorenaM, LawsCA, WestobyM. Bark ecology of twigs vs. main stems: functional traits across eighty-five species of angiosperms. Oecologia, 2015, 178(4): 1033-1043

[28] RosellJA, OlsonME, AnfodilloT, Martínez-MéndezN. Exploring the bark thickness–stem diameter relationship: clues from lianas, successive cambia, monocots and gymnosperms. New Phytol, 2017, 215(2): 569-581

[29] SchubertAT, NanoCEM, ClarkePJ, LawesMJ. Evidence for bark thickness as a fire-resistance trait from desert to savanna in fire-prone inland Australia. Plant Ecol, 2016, 217(6): 683-696

[30] SerraO, MähönenAP, HetheringtonAJ, RagniL. The making of plant armor: the periderm. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2022, 73: 405-432

[31] SevantoS. Phloem transport and drought. J Exp Bot, 2014, 65(7): 1751-1759

[32] TyreeMT, ZimmermannMH Xylem structure and the ascent of sap, 2013 New York Springer

[33] Vázquez-SegoviaK, OlsonME, CampoJ, ÁngelesG, Martínez-GarzaC, VetterS, RosellJA. Tip-to-base bark cross-sectional areas contribute to understanding the drivers of carbon allocation to bark and the functional roles of bark tissues. New Phytol, 2025, 245(5): 1953-1968

[34] WartonDI, WrightIJ, FalsterDS, WestobyM. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc, 2006, 81(2): 259-291

[35] WigleyBJ, Charles-DominiqueT, HempsonGP, StevensN, TeBeestM, ArchibaldS, BondWJ, BunneyK, CoetseeC, DonaldsonJ, FidelisA, GaoX, GignouxJ, LehmannC, MassadTJ, MidgleyJJ, MillanM, SchwilkD, SiebertF, SolofondranohatraC, StaverAC, ZhouY, KrugerLM. A handbook for the standardised sampling of plant functional traits in disturbance-prone ecosystems, with a focus on open ecosystems. Aust J Bot, 2020, 68(8): 473-531

[36] WilmsF, DuppelN, CremerT, BerendtF. Bark thickness and heights of the bark transition area of Scots pine. Forests, 2021, 12(10): 1386

[37] ZhangHY, WangCK, WangXC. Spatial variations in non-structural carbohydrates in stems of twelve temperate tree species. Trees, 2014, 28(1): 77-89

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Northeast Forestry University