%0 Journal Article %1 Loveys2002 %A Loveys, B. R. %A Scheurwater, I. %A Pons, T. L. %A Fitter, A. H. %A Atkin, O. K. %D 2002 %J Plant, Cell and Environment %K alpine, bibtex-import, citeulikeExport honours %P 975--987 %T Growth temperature influences the underlying components of relative growth rate: an investigation using inherently fast- and slow-growing plant species %V 25

@article{Loveys2002, added-at = {2019-03-31T01:14:40.000+0100}, author = {Loveys, B. R. and Scheurwater, I. and Pons, T. L. and Fitter, A. H. and Atkin, O. K.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a2b8c48eaaf3740b66ac27d03546d102/dianella}, citeulike-article-id = {1523821}, comment = {(private-note)Whole plant respiratory acclimation to temperature determines the extent that RGR changes with temperature. NAR is important to some extent (low temperatures most of all), as is SLA within a range. Adaptation to resource-poor habitats. Whole-shoot Ps or R won?t explain NAR, but Ps or R per unit leaf area does. A common way to test acclimation potential: are psic/resp rates homeostatic over growth temperatures? Are they more homeostatic than short-term temperature responses? Changes in temperature may have different effects on species, depending on their RGR. *this is inside-out to what one of my conclusions wants to be *. Moreover, they might acclimate different amounts. RGR range: 22.6 mg/g/d to 258 mg/g/d (me: 166 to 49 mg/g/d) Positive relationship btw. SLA and RGR in combined data. In most spp SLA increased as growth temperature increased. (yes same here) More so in the fast-growing spp. (not necessarily. Except foliosa has least variation and is slow) SLA became more important for explaining differences at higher temperatures. (not necessarilairy) NO significant effect of temperature on LMR (definitely was!) NAR positively correlated with RGR at all growth temperatures (not 7 degrees yet) NAR was most important for explaining differences in RGR at low temperatures (no. not yet) NAR was most variable over temperature in fast-growing species. YES Slow-growing species were more temperature-sensitive. NO WAY are you sure she said this? Whole-plant respiration was negatively correlated with RGR at all three growth temperatures, but within temperatures, was only significant at 28C. Change in whole-plant Respiration was the cause of NAR changes. This was because of lower rates of respiration on a mass basis. Difference in extent to which Respiration is affected by temperature: more suppressed at lower temperatures in fast-growing species (ahem. The slow growing ones came from colder places) and therefore concluded more acclimation in slow-growers. R/P is homeostatic at moderate growth temperatures. Thermal origin was not as significant as max RGR in explaining NAR and RGR. Thermal regimes dictate max RGR?????}, interhash = {00e74bea73161f17ca060e8218f06ff4}, intrahash = {a2b8c48eaaf3740b66ac27d03546d102}, journal = {Plant, Cell and Environment}, keywords = {alpine, bibtex-import, citeulikeExport honours}, pages = {975--987}, posted-at = {2007-07-31 06:38:40}, priority = {0}, timestamp = {2019-03-31T01:16:26.000+0100}, title = {{Growth temperature influences the underlying components of relative growth rate: an investigation using inherently fast- and slow-growing plant species}}, volume = 25, year = 2002 }