English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

We measured leaf respiration in 18 eastern deciduous forest tree species to determine if there were differences in temperature–respiration response functions among species or among canopy positions. Leaf respiration rates were measured  in situ  and on detached branches for  Acer pensylvanicum  L.,  A. rubrum  L.,  Betula  spp. ( B. alleghaniensis  Britt. and  B. lenta  L.),  Carya glabra  (Mill.) Sweet,  Cornus florida  L.,  Fraxinus  spp. (primarily  F. americana  L.),  Liriodendron tulipifera  L.,  Magnolia fraseri  Walt.,  Nyssa sylvatica  Marsh.,  Oxydendrum arboreum  L.,  Platanus occidentalis  L.,  Quercus alba  L.,  Q. coccinea  Muenchh.,  Q. prinus  L.,  Q. rubra  L.,  Rhododendron maximum  L.,  Robinia psuedoacacia  L., and  Tilia americana  L. in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Dark respiration was measured on fully expanded leaves at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 °C with an infrared gas analyzer equipped with a temperature-controlled cuvette. Temperature–respiration response functions were fit for each leaf. There were significant differences in response functions among species and by canopy position within species. These differences were observed when respiration was expressed on a mass, nitrogen, or area basis. Cumulative nighttime leaf respiration was calculated and averaged over ten randomly selected nights for each leaf. Differences in mean cumulative nighttime respiration were statistically significant among canopy positions and species. We conclude that effects of canopy position and species on temperature–respiration response functions may need to be considered when making estimates of whole-tree or canopy respiration.

Foliar temperature–respiration response functions for broad-leaved tree species in the southern Appalachians