Partitioning the components of relative growth rate: how important is plant size variation?

Plant growth plays a key role in the functioning of the terrestrial biosphere, and there have been substantial efforts to understand why growth varies among species. To this end, a large number of experimental analyses have been undertaken; however, the emergent patterns between growth rate and its components are often contradictory. We believe that these conflicting results are a consequence of the way growth is measured. Growth is typically characterized by relative growth rate (RGR); however, RGR often declines as organisms get larger, making it difficult to compare species of different sizes. To overcome this problem, we advocate using nonlinear mixed-effects models so that RGR can be calculated at a standard size, and we present easily implemented methods for doing this. We then present new methods for analyzing the traditional components of RGR that explicitly allow for the fact that (log)(RGR) is the sum of its components. These methods provide an exact decomposition of the variance in (log)(RGR). Finally, we use simple analytical and simulation approaches to explore the effect of size variation on growth and its components and show that the relative importance of the components of RGR is influenced by the extent to which analyses standardize for plant size.

Ecophysiological traits in C3 and C4 grasses: a phylogenetically controlled screening experiment.

Experimental evidence demonstrates a higher efficiency of water and nitrogen use in C(4) compared with C(3) plants, which is hypothesized to drive differences in biomass allocation between C(3) and C(4) species. However, recent work shows that contrasts between C(3) and C(4) grasses may be misinterpreted without phylogenetic control. Here, we compared leaf physiology and growth in multiple lineages of C(3) and C(4) grasses sampled from a monophyletic clade, and asked the following question: which ecophysiological traits differ consistently between photosynthetic types, and which vary among lineages? C(4) species had lower stomatal conductance and water potential deficits, and higher water-use efficiency than C(3) species. Photosynthesis and nitrogen-use efficiency were also greater in C(4) species, varying markedly between clades. Contrary to previous studies, leaf nitrogen concentration was similar in C(4) and C(3) types. Canopy mass and area were greater, and root mass smaller, in the tribe Paniceae than in most other lineages. The size of this phylogenetic effect on biomass partitioning was greater in the C(4) NADP-me species than in species of other types. Our results show that the phylogenetic diversity underlying C(4) photosynthesis is critical to understanding its functional consequences. Phylogenetic bias is therefore a crucial factor to be considered when comparing the ecophysiology of C(3) and C(4) species.