/
How are physiological constraints which govern How are physiological constraints which govern

How are physiological constraints which govern - PowerPoint Presentation

karlyn-bohler
karlyn-bohler . @karlyn-bohler
Follow
398 views
Uploaded On 2016-06-21

How are physiological constraints which govern - PPT Presentation

biomass scaling and vascular architecture maintained in managed orchard systems a tree is a tree selective breeding programs cannot fundamentally alter the physiological ID: 371302

tree biomass canopy branch biomass tree branch canopy leaf mass water high orchard efficiency amp growth pruning branching research

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "How are physiological constraints which ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

How are physiological constraints which govern

biomass scaling and vascular architecture maintained in managed orchard systems? - “a tree is a tree” - selective breeding programs cannot fundamentally alter the physiological constraints acting on tree physiologyDo deviations from branching architecture relationships derived in natural forest ecosystems demonstrate a deliberate human manipulation (e.g., pruning) on the system? - branching ratio will vary with canopy height - higher order branches: optimize resource transport & growth - scaffolds, high influence from pruning (i.e. scars) Photosynthetic Biomass Mp vs. Annual Growth Rate G Stem Basal Diameter D vs. Total Stem Biomass MS Before Tree Reconstruction After Stem Midpoint Diameter D vs. Number of Supported Twigs

Developing an Agroecological Approach

to Branching Architecture and Biomass Scaling Using Orchard Trees

Zachary T. Brym, Utah State University, Department of Biology and Ecology Center

Current Research Direction

Anthropogenic – “Human Manipulation” – Domestic Fruit Trees

- graft / scion union:

disease resistance

-

dwarfing: increase xylem resistance, poor nutrient transport / water use efficiency - precocity: early maturation - pruning regiment: increased light, reduced vigor - unlimited nutrients and water - biomass approximation: trunk cross-sectional area, canopy volume, yield efficiencyEvolutionary – “Natural Selection” – Forest Trees - grow tall to light source - reproduce late once established in canopy - maximize water efficiency - self shading  “poor” light interception - biomass scales: Mp ~ G, D ~ Ms

Agriculture Intensification Gradient

Natural Selection

High Leaf Mass : Wood Mass

Fast Maturity

Max Light

Interception

“Optimal Foraging” Vascular Structure

Low Leaf Mass : Wood MassSlow MaturityHigh Self ShadingWater Wise Vascular Structure

A Weecology Production

Evolutionary Trade-offs

Human Manipulation

Low Reproductive Yield

Low Initial Cost

Low Economic Efficiency

High Reproductive Yield

High Initial Cost

High Economic Efficiency

Expected Branching Ratio

:

Biomass and Architecture Model

- first test of this theory in agricultural system

- first spatially explicit tree

- tests the consequences of various horticultural management strategies (e.g. pruning)

- explores avenues of research likely to increase the efficiency of tree

growth

- predict water use for diffuse-porous fruit treesEconomics and Management Model - politico-economic parameters included to suggest sustainable horticultural systems - explore optimal management strategies adapted under social / climate changeExtension Decision- making Model - growers, plant breeders, urban planners - graphical user interface for interactions in a survey-like fashion - generalizes physiological constraints, water-use and management decisions - What yield and resource use do we expect under predicted environmental conditions?

Broader Impacts

Opposing Forces

Acknowledgements

Thank you for the funding support from the Utah State University Graduate Student Senate Research and Project Grant and the Ecology Center Ph.D. Assistantship and Research Support Award and the field support from the staff and researchers at the Kaysville Experimental Orchard that make this project possible.

Niklas

K.J. &

Enquist B.J. (2001) Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. PNAS, 98(5): 2922-2927Niklas K.J. & Spatz H.C. (2004) Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass. PNAS,101(44): 15661-15663

Data Collection

H

W

LAI

D

L

SLA

M

S

H

- canopy height

W

- canopy width

D

- branch diameter

L

- branch length

- branch angle / declination

C -

branch bearing / heading

P - parent branch IDNt,s,b - total count (twig, scar, spur)ML,S,R - biomass (leaves, stems, roots) - wood densityLAI - total leaf area / ground areaSLA - individual leaf area / leaf mass

(

C

P

M

R

M

L

Orchard

Tree

Orchard

Tree

(

Niklas

&

Enquist, 2001)

(Niklas & Spatz, 2004)

2:1

3:1

5:1

9:1

y = 1.52x – 0.88R2 = 0.796