Abstract
Key message
A contribution to understand the eco-physiological significance of the total non-structural carbohydrate reserves through making a distinction between accumulated and stored pools along with their respective roles played in woody plants.
Abstract
Plant assimilates are partitioned to growth, defense, maintenance and reserves. Reserves of total non-structural carbohydrates (TNC) are accumulated when the demand for carbon (C) is lower than C supply. Accumulated TNC are stored if not used for growth and metabolism during the growing period. The assessment of the physiological significance of TNC reserves in trees should distinguish between accumulated and stored pools. Accumulated fraction of TNC is characterized by a rapid turnover rate that buffers temporary negative C balance of trees in an annual cycle, whereas stored fraction is characterized by a slow turnover rate that could buffer demand for TNC throughout all tree life during stressful conditions. The increased need for TNC during acute adverse environmental conditions associated with the slow turnover of stored TNC reserves induces the remobilization of the fraction of TNC initially destined for growth and defense which could be a cause of tree mortality. The observed C “sequestration” could be due to the slow turnover dynamic of stored TNC that could be in turn, an adaptive strategy to survive adverse conditions at long term, especially in areas characterized by poor nutrient availability, repeated disturbance and prolonged drought periods. The storage-growth tradeoff is discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Total Non-structural Carbohydrates (TNC) reserves represent an available source of carbon (C) and energy that can be used by plant whenever the demand for C overweigh the amount of the new assimilates. Reserves of TNC enable metabolism in the dormant season (Carbone et al. 2014), dormancy release, bud burst, rapid recovery after defoliation and drought (Eyles et al. 2009; Launay et al. 2009) and early wood growth (El Zein et al. 2011). Many studies reported the role of TNC reserves in mediating the effects of stress (Kozlowski 1992) through enhancing the tolerance to environmental stress, especially when C gain is limited (O’Brien et al. 2014).
Although the role of the TNC in plant growth and performance is well documented, controversy still exists about storage function and regulation and about how TNC pools build-up over time. One cause of controversy could be related to what we consider storage in plants. TNC reserves are often treated physiologically together in studies aiming to answer the pending questions about C budget in trees (Kobe 1997; Schaefer et al. 2008; Ogee et al. 2009; Sala et al. 2012) and considered thus one TNC pool. Some authors, however, have already determined two pools of TNC (Ogle and Pacala 2009; Kuptz et al. 2011; Richardson et al. 2013) with different traits and behaviors. The different behaviors of the different TNC pools may result from different roles played within the tree. Therefore, it is necessary to consider each pool of TNC separately when studying stress effects on plant reserves or when debating some important issues like storage regulation.
The aim of the present paper is to reevaluate the ecological and physiological significance of TNC reserves in plants, making a distinction between accumulated (new C) and stored (old C) pools. The main points to discuss will be: i) The characterization of the two pools of TNC in the light of available studies; ii) The remobilization of TNC during growing period, moderate stress and acute adverse conditions and iii) The storage-growth tradeoff. Discussing these topics will help to understand better the process of TNC storage in trees and the role of TNC reserves in response to climate change, stress and disturbance.
Accumulation versus storage
During photosynthesis, newly assimilated C in the chloroplast is exported to the cytosol to synthetize sucrose. A fraction of the sucrose will be immediately used for growth, whereas another fraction is converted to starch to provide C for continued growth and metabolism at night (Gordon et al. 1980). All remaining sucrose will be loaded into the phloem to be translocated to other organs of the plant to ensure many roles (respiration, growth, defense, symbiosis, storage, etc.). The translocation of TNC from leaves to roots and soil was observed to be remarkably a quick process (Högberg et al. 2008; Epron et al. 2011) even under C limiting conditions (Lacointe et al. 2004; Warren et al. 2012).
Sucrose -which is metabolically active- is the transport form of sugars within the plant that will be converted to starch -which is immobile and metabolically inert- when accumulated in the different organs of the plant. Accumulation occurs in all organs successively downward from the leaves and branches to the trunk and roots. TNC are accumulated throughout the year (whenever the demand for TNC is low) to be used during growing season (when the demand for TNC is high). The “accumulation” starts during spring, increases during summer and becomes maximal early in the winter in deciduous species (Davidson et al. 2021; Tromp 1983). In evergreen species, the maximal accumulation of TNC is reported to be at the end of spring (Schaberg et al. 2000; Furze et al. 2019). Evergreen species that store less TNC per unit plant biomass than deciduous species- do not need a large fraction of the TNC pool to enable metabolism during the dormant season and to support early growth in spring (old leaves are supposed to contribute TNC to initiation of spring growth (Wyka et al. 2016)), so the fulfillment of TNC is achieved fast in comparison to deciduous species that will deplete TNC reserves during dormant season and early spring.
Photosynthetic inputs seem to exceed tree demand in an annual cycle (Hoch et al. 2003; Poorter et al. 2006) and trees accumulate continuously new TNC (Trumbore et al. 2015). A positive correlation was obtained between individual tree biomass and whole-tree total TNC pool size (Furze et al. 2019). Accumulated fraction of TNC is thus unlikely to be wholly depleted during the growing period in normal conditions (Adams et al., 2013; O’Brien et al., 2014). Thus, if accumulated C is not totally used during the current year, the excess of TNC of the following year will be accumulated on. The previous accumulated pool of TNC becomes an old pool stored in deeper structures that will contain increasingly the oldest C (Trumbore et al. 2015). Consequently, the stored pool becomes more important in C budget as the tree ages according to DeJong (2016), who suggested that “the capacity of a tree to store TNC depends largely on the function of xylem and phloem anatomy and is created as trees grow”. In this perspective, we could consider storage as a result of an excess of the accumulated fraction of TNC not used within a determined timescale (a year in general). Some storage organs “lignotubers” are reported to not be discerned macroscopically till the age of 2 and 4 years old in the case of Phillyrea angustifolia and Arbutus unedo respectively (Paula et al. 2016).
The vegetative growth stage that starts from seed germination through the development of the primary supporting structure, relies firstly on the remobilization of TNC available on the seeds. Upon the increase of the photosynthetic capacity, TNC are accumulated and remobilized seasonally to meet the demand for C and energy of the plant. We suggest, therefore no storage of TNC in this stage. However, during the reproductive growth stage characterized by the maturation of tissues manufactured during vegetative phase and the development of flower buds, flowers, fruits and seeds, most of the TNC are accumulated and subsequently stored in all organs of the tree during usual environmental conditions.
The distinction between stored and accumulated pools of TNC could be based on two aspects: carbon age and TNC localization in tree structures. Accumulated and stored TNC pools are physically distinct because they are stored in younger versus older rings, respectively. It has been found a positive correlation between TNC age and radial depth in stems and roots (Richardson et al. 2015; Futze et al. 2020).
The exact localization of the two TNC pools could depend on tree species. Richardson et al. (2015) for example, showed that two third of TNC that correspond to the new TNC (less than one year) are localized in the upper five rings of stemwood in the case of Pinus strobus and Quercus rubra whereas one third of TNC (old pool) is localized in the following deeper rings.
Characterization of the accumulated versus stored TNC pools
Residence time—Turnover rate
The C assimilated is always accumulated before its subsequent use. Assimilation of C and growth process were already suggested by many authors to be unsynchronized (Arneth et al., 1998; Navarro et al., 2008; Rocha and Goulden, 2009). For instance, a strong correlation was obtained between net ecosystem exchange of CO2 in one year and biomass increment in the following year (Kuptz et al. 2011). Even in herbaceous species, newly assimilated C is not used directly for growth (Gibon et al. 2004).
As mentioned before, a fraction of new TNC is used for current growth and metabolism. The remaining fraction of TNC is accumulated and subsequently used depending on C age: Accumulated fraction of TNC could be used within the first year after C assimilation, mainly during the growing period, whereas stored fraction could be used at the long term (Carbone and Trumbore 2007; Högberg et al. 2008; Warren et al. 2012) depending on environmental conditions that affect the magnitude of tree demand. Richardson et al. (2013) already differentiated between a TNC pool that changes in size seasonally and a TNC pool which buffers tree demand on multi-annual time scales. They suggested furthermore, a physical separation between the two pools of TNC in trunks and roots.
Some authors have also identified two fractions of TNC considering “transient” versus “stored” (Ogle and Pacala 2009; Chantuma et al. 2009; Kuptz et al. 2011) or “fast” versus “slow” reserves (Richardson et al. 2013) distinguishing thus two physical pools of TNC: “new” versus “old” that should correspond to accumulated versus stored pools respectively. Recent assimilates are a “ready to use” fraction of TNC that could be remobilized quickly to satisfy plant demand.
The accumulated pool could follow an annual pattern of depletion and replenishment whereas stored pool could be increasing slowly over the entire life of the tree in normal conditions (Fig. 1A). While the turnover rate of accumulated pool is fast, that of stored pool is low due likely to being localized in old deep structures. The remobilization of old fraction of TNC could happen just in case of total depletion of accumulated pool (Richardson et al. 2013).
Behavior during stress
Considering reserves of TNC as a single pool, this could increase, decrease or even stay constant during a drought for example (e.g., Galiano et al., 2011; Galvez et al., 2011; 2013; Anderegg and Anderegg, 2013) (Table 1) and this response can even differ between organs of individual trees (Hartmann et al., 2013). By contrast, if we consider two pools of TNC reserves, we could suggest that the accumulated fraction of assimilates should increase immediately during the first stage of stressful conditions. During drought, for example, growth declines earlier than photosynthesis resulting in an increase of TNC accumulated (Muller et al. 2011). The same result was observed when the limiting factor is nitrogen (El Omari et al. 2003). However, such increase is transient and will be followed by a decrease of accumulated TNC to ensure plant metabolism. The depletion of the accumulated pool will be followed by a decrease of stored TNC if stressful conditions persist. So, depending on the timescale of observation/experimentation, the accumulated fraction of TNC could increase, decrease or stay constant, whereas the fraction of stored TNC should decrease when the accumulated fraction is depleted.
Localization of the accumulated versus stored TNC reserves
Some authors subdivided TNC reserves into above- and belowground fractions (Berninger 2000; Allen et al. 2005) with a higher concentration of TNC in the belowground than in the aboveground parts of the tree (Da Silva et al., 2014). As mentioned before, mature trees could contain—in normal conditions- high amounts of stored pool of TNC in roots due to a higher proportion of radial and axial parenchyma cells (Pratt et al., 2007). However, accumulated fraction occurs in all organs, but is periodically depleted and replenished to ensure growth and metabolism. It could be considered a seasonal “transient” storage within trees. Richardson et al. (2015) reported less seasonal interconversion of sugars and starch occurring in belowground organs in comparison to aboveground ones suggesting thus a high cycling of accumulated pool in branches and stems and a low cycling of a stored pool of TNC in roots. Furze et al. (2019) obtained the same result, i.e., a seasonal depletion of TNC in branches and a constant TNC content in roots throughout the year, which accounted for 25–35% of whole-tree TNC reserves in deciduous species. We suggest, therefore, that aboveground reserves could be dominated by accumulated fraction, whereas belowground reserves are dominated by the stored fraction of TNC.
On the other hand, new structures (small branches, fine roots, new leaves) were observed to contain the recent C (Gaudinski et al. 2009; Warren et al. 2012) while old structures (large branches, coarse roots and stems) contain old C (Hartmann and Trumbore 2016). This could lead to suggest that old C is -in general- not used to build-up new biomass. Root reserves were not used to support springtime growth nor a biomass regeneration after defoliation or shoot excision. Avice et al. (1996) reported that a 95% of TNC -that was remobilized from organs remaining after shoot excision within 30 days- was lost by root and shoot respiration whereas just 5% of this C was recovered in the new leaves. Morvan-bertrand et al. (1999) also demonstrated that after a regrowing period of 28 days, 54% of the C fixed before defoliation in the case of Lolium perenne was remobilized to ensure plant metabolism and only 1% was incorporated into entirely new tissues. Thus, we can conclude that storage occurs in old structures (roots and trunk) whereas accumulation occurs in all organs and is mainly used for new growth. Therefore, when we speak about underground TNC reserves, there is more probability that it concerns the stored fraction rather than the accumulated fraction of TNC.
Taking into account all the characteristics of the stored and accumulated fractions of TNC, we assume that if we consider TNC reserves as a whole, we will not be able to evaluate accurately the eco-physiological significance of TNC reserves in tree growth and performance. The size of the accumulated fraction -especially at the end of the growing season- could be high in the aboveground part of the tree, whereas the stored pool of TNC of mature trees could dominate in roots. Furze et al. (2019) for instance, -considering TNC reserves as a whole- observed that the roots were not the major storage organ as branches stored comparable amounts of starch throughout the year. Therefore, depending on season, tree age and stress history, the relative contribution of the two pools of TNC to tree performance in normal and stressful conditions will be different.
Remobilization process
Remobilization is a process of redistribution of TNC that occurs usually when the demand for C overweigh the amount of the new assimilates. This could occur at the beginning of the growing period or during stressful conditions. The remobilization is driven by the intrinsic sink strengths created by the different plant tissues (Millard and Grelet 2010).
Remobilization during growing period
A fraction of assimilates produced daily by photosynthesis accumulates throughout the year to support the demand for C during the growing period. Accumulated fraction of TNC in the previous year was suggested to be of primary importance for spring growth in trees (Tromp 1983; Vilela et al. 2016). Some deciduous species, for instance, exhibit blooming before any leaf emergence (Grainger 1939; Gougherty and Gougherty 2018).
The process of accumulation occurs in all organs of the plant, enabling thus a fast use of TNC to satisfy the demand of plant organs. A TNC translocation between leaves and roots could last several days depending on the height of the trees (Kuptz et al. 2011). Even old leaves of evergreen species could be a source of C remobilized during spring growth as reported in some studies (e.g., Cerasoli et al. 2004).
On the other hand, accumulated TNC was characterized to be a fast pool in comparison to stored fraction (slow pool). The high turnover rate could explain the use of new assimilates (accumulated) firstly rather than old ones (stored) as suggested to be the case in most forest ecosystems under normal circumstances. Gaudinski et al. (2009) for instance, estimated that the mean age of TNC used to grow both leaf buds and new roots is less than one year. Then and during the growing season, trees become rapidly autonomous (Hoch et al. 2003; Keel et al. 2007) due to the compensatory effect of photosynthesis. Fruit set, for instance, was shown to depend on new assimilates rather than on TNC remobilized (Breen et al 2020). The compensatory effect of photosynthesis, along with the high turnover of the accumulated pool between the different organs of the tree could explain the maintenance of TNC concentration over the growing season obtained in several studies (Hoch et al. 2003). So, in normal conditions and even under maximum demand for TNC, those could never be depleted, especially if they are quantified at the whole-tree level (Bustan et al. 2011). The depletion could be observed transiently at the organ level (Furze et al. 2019) but the plant organs became autonomous during the growing period and the accumulated fraction of TNC is quickly replenished indicating no C limitation in normal conditions. The magnitude of C remobilization was demonstrated to be independent of growth rate and leaf habit (Piper 2020).
Remobilization during stressful conditions
Many results provide evidence that plants remobilize TNC reserves during stressful conditions (Maguire and Kobe 2015). Considering the two pools of TNC reserves, the accumulated fraction during the previous year will be remobilized firstly during stressful conditions (Fig. 1B) and when totally depleted, the stored fraction of TNC could also be remobilized to meet tree demand (Richardson et al. 2013). We could suggest that the stressful condition resulting in C limitation to growth process could be “experienced” by trees, only if the accumulated fraction of TNC is exhausted (because stored fraction is not a “ready to use” pool). The depletion of the accumulated TNC pool could lead therefore to stop growth process that was observed in many studies. Moderate stress (slight defoliation, slight water stress) was reported to not affect growth rate (Vilela et al. 2016; Scartazza et al. 2013), whereas high stress conditions such as heavy defoliation or a severe drought was observed to cause a reduction of growth rate (Puri et al. 2015; Vilela et al. 2016) (Table 1). The reduction of growth during stressful conditions could be also due to other factors other than C limitation, such as hormonal signals that affect cambial activity (Puri et al. 2015).
The slow turnover rate of stored TNC pool could be useful for a progressive use during long term stress, enabling -whenever C assimilated is lower than the compensation point- tree metabolism. As evidenced by some studies, the demand for C for respiration process and osmotic adjustment could decrease TNC pools during longer periods of stress (drought for example) until the plant dies (McDowell, 2011). O’Brien et al. (2014) obtained a positive relationship between TNC and drought survival by manipulating TNC concentrations within seedlings of ten tropical tree species. Trees with reduced levels of TNC reserves are more likely to die (Margolis and Waring 1986), whereas after defoliation for example, saplings with larger initial TNC reserves were more likely to survive (Canham et al. 1999). Kobe (1997) demonstrated also a relationship between interspecific variation in the storage of TNC and tree species differences in sapling survival and growth.
Remobilization during sudden and acute adverse conditions
Both accumulated and stored fractions of TNC could be remobilized consecutively during acute disturbance to provide plants with C needed for maintenance (Fig. 1C). If the accumulated fraction of TNC is totally exhausted, the fraction of TNC initially destined for growth and defense might also be remobilized from neighboring tissues to buffer as soon as possible C demand of the plant (Chapin et al. 1990) given the fact that the rate of remobilization of the stored TNC is not sufficient for being a slow pool. Also, the urgent need for C could result in the break-down of structural C (hemicellulose) (Hoch 2007; Schädel et al. 2009). Furthermore, the shift from carbohydrates to other reserve compounds such as lipids and the recycling of existing metabolites like proteins to meet plant demand was also reported (Fischer et al., 2015). So, trees could remobilize and broke down other molecules (structural carbohydrates, lipids and proteins) to enable maintenance and survival of the plant due to the slow turnover rate of the stored pool of TNC.
Tree mortality observed in some cases could be due to the depletion of some metabolites (e.g., compounds destined to defense) and the inability to use quickly stored TNC (for being a slow pool) rather than to the depletion of all stored TNC. Reserves of TNC in trees are demonstrated to be almost never completely depleted, although they could exhibit some seasonal variation (Würth et al. 2005; Spann et al. 2008). Maguire and kobe (2015) observed during a combined treatment of drought and shade a minimum of 0.25% of TNC remaining in the roots. Also, Canadell and López-Soria (1998) reported 4% of starch remaining within roots of dead plants after multiple clipping.
The fact that reserves of TNC are almost never fully depleted was explained by some authors (Millard and Grelet 2010) by “sequestration”. We suggest, however, that the inability to use all stored reserves immediately in severe stress conditions is due to the slow turnover of the stored fraction of TNC that could have the main role of enabling plant metabolism during extended time period of stress. Many studies have shown that stored C dating back to decades could be remobilized to ensure root (Schuur and Trumbore, 2006; Carbone et al., 2011) and stem (Muhr et al., 2013) respiration especially when forest stands ages (Czimczik et al. 2006). Furthermore, trees could deplete totally stored C leading to plant death after a period of several years of extreme stress (Galiano et al. 2011; Galvez et al. 2013; Hartmann et al. 2013).
All this show evidence that stored TNC fraction could be reused in a prolonged period of stress. Therefore, the fraction of TNC identified as “sequestered” should belong to stored but, not to the accumulated pool of TNC. The continuous use of accumulated TNC (new C) firstly results in a fraction of stored TNC that could date back to a several decades, which is not due to a “sequestration” but: i) to a C demand satisfied just by accumulated pool and ii) to the slow behavior of the stored fraction of TNC. McCarroll et al. (2017) demonstrated that early wood formation is preferentially build-up using young reserves accumulated in the previous summer, whereas during poor growing conditions, trees use older TNC reserves.
The tendency to maintain some amount of stored pool of TNC (threshold) -enabled by its slow turnover rate- makes evidence of some specific physiological roles played during stress to enable proper tree functions (Adams et al., 2013). It could enable new root growth mainly as a metabolic substrate and as regulatory signals (Willaume and Pagès 2011) ensuring safety margins in stressful conditions through maintaining hydraulic transport and metabolism, root respiration (Druege et al. 2000; 2004), C for partners in a symbiosis relationship (Smith and Smith 2012); cold tolerance, osmoregulation (Dietze et al. 2014), vascular integrity during drought (Sala et al. 2012) and absorption of nutrients (carbohydrates provide energy for symplastic absorption of elements from the soil), etc.
We conclude that the fraction of stored pool of TNC could provide the energy necessary for whole-tree maintenance, enabling thus survival during prolonged periods of stress, as an adaptation strategy during adverse conditions such as extended shading (Kobe 1997), severe herbivory (Wiley and Helliker, 2012) and in particular to overcome the consequences of climate change. This is especially true for old trees that accumulate a large fraction of stored C throughout their whole life. The ability of trees to store a large fraction of TNC—that should be due among other factors, to genetic traits- could have an effect on the resilience capacity to a sudden and acute disturbance.
The recovery from an acute stress or a disturbance (fire, for example) was reported to depend on TNC reserves (Piper and Paula 2020). The period time of TNC replenishment in the organs till levels prior to stress or disturbance was observed in many studies to range between a few months and one year (Table 1), indicating that the accumulated fraction of TNC plays a primordial role in maintaining C balance in trees. We suggest that if the recovery time after stress occurs after the growing period, this could mean that the TNC fraction remobilized is the accumulated pool. However, if the recovery process lasts more than a year and the TNC reserves were not replenished after the growing season, this could signify that the stored fraction of TNC was remobilized during the stress period. Canadell and López-Soria (1998) for instance, reported that two years after multiple clipping, TNC reserves were less than unclipped plants.
Growth and storage tradeoff
Allocation of carbohydrates to build-up reserves is considered by some authors to be a purely passive consequence of the balance between C supply via photosynthesis and C demand for growth and metabolism. The main argument is that TNC cannot accumulate when growth is C limited (Bansal and Germino, 2008; Millard and Grelet 2010). Some studies by contrast, reported the possibility that the storage process in plants is regulated and therefore could be considered an active process (Le Roux et al. 2001; Chantuma et al. 2009; Genet et al. 2010) given the fact that it occurs at a time when TNC could otherwise be used for growth.
The debate about the tradeoff between growth and storage process should differentiate between accumulated and stored pools given their different behavior and respective roles in tree growth and survival. The main point to take into account in this discussion is the fact that the growth of trees is reported to depend –as mentioned previously- on the C assimilated and accumulated during the previous year (Kagawa et al., 2006; Helle and Schleser, 2004). Growth does not depend exclusively on current assimilates and the reduction of growth in some stressful conditions does not mean necessarily that it results from a C limitation. Schmid et al. (2017) for instance, demonstrated that the reduction of growth rate after defoliation does not depend on environmental CO2.
The suggested passive process of accumulation of TNC does not mean that it is a process of low priority. It could result from the excessive production of assimilates that is too much higher than the tree demand for C and energy in a yearly basis. Poorter et al. (2006) reported that leaves may produce three to four times their own C cost per year, which could explain the increase of the concentration of TNC in trees with age (Ryan et al. 1997). Furthermore, Hoch et al. (2003) reported an observed amount of TNC in deciduous species sufficient to replace the leaf canopy four times. Trumbore et al. (2015) on the other hand, demonstrated that the flux of C inward into stems is higher than the flux of C outward indicating a continuous accumulation of TNC within stems. So, it is unlikely that carbon supply could limit mature tree growth in normal conditions (Fatichi et al. 2014; Körner, 2015). A high TNC reserves were observed in many studies, regardless of season, climate or habitat (Würth et al. 2005). Even in stressful conditions (drought, for example), is has been shown that growth is not limited by C supply (Piper et al. 2017).
The main argument in favor of growth-storage tradeoff and storage regulation is the maintenance or the increase of TNC reserves in periods of high C demand (Silpi et al. 2007; Bustan et al. 2011). We suggest that this could result from the remobilization of the accumulated pool of TNC from other tree organs to support the high demand for C. Measurements are often done using stem or branch samples, but almost never using root samples for the difficulty of sampling. The maintenance or the increase of TNC could also result from the reduction of growth during the shift from vegetative to reproductive stage increasing thus the amount of current assimilates.
The maintenance of TNC concentration when growth is reduced during some stressful conditions (Table 1) does not necessarily mean that storage is actively regulated. This could also result from a remobilization of the accumulated TNC from other organs. The reduction of growth could be due to environmental conditions (cold, drought, etc.) or to a critical loss of reserves other than a C during defoliation for example (Puri et al. 2015). Silpi et al. (2007) on the other hand, reported an increase of TNC in trunks following tapping process. We suggest that the increase observed is due to a remobilized TNC from other organs of the tree to support latex regeneration stimulated by tapping and to enable defensive processes. Tapping is a stressful process that could lead to stimulate defense mechanisms rather than enabling growth process.
Another issue of storage-growth tradeoff is that related to the differences observed between resprouters and obligate seeders. It has been reported that resprouters allocate more assimilates to storage and exhibit low growth rates in comparison to obligate seeders that store less carbohydrate reserves and achieve higher growth rates, especially in the first few years from germination (Pate et al. 1990; Verdaguer and Ojeda 2002). Some studies, however, have demonstrated that resprouters do not exhibit a low growth rate (Schwilk and Ackerly 2005) nor a preferential allocation to root reserves after clipping (Palacio et al. 2020).
We suggest that the ability to store more carbohydrate reserves could be an adaptive trait that enables resprouters to regenerate after a disturbance. Resprouters exhibit more storage parenchyma (Bowen and Pate 2017) than seedlings that have a reduced storage capacity (Hartmann et al. 2018; Ryan 2011). Furthermore, resprouters are individuals with a great root mass that requires a higher TNC amount for both maintenance and recovery process, whereas seedlings allocate carbohydrate reserves to vegetative growth and early reproduction (Fitter and Hay 2002).
We emphasized previously about the importance of previous TNC reserves for the current growth both in normal and stressful conditions. The ability of trees to regenerate after a disturbance relies on the amount of carbohydrates stored previously, although it is not the determinant factor for the growth rate the tree could achieve. The ability to store more carbohydrate reserves and/or to achieve a determined growth rate is related to genetic traits and evolutionary behaviors. In a work done by Chew and Bonser (2009), they observed that resprouters were not slower growing and that they did not allocate more resources for storage in comparison to seeders. They suggested that the differences in growth rate are not due to differences in carbohydrate allocation to storage and that growth process is related to some characteristics of tree life history like the size at maturity and life-span. Some physiological traits are reported to be independent of C budget of trees. For instance, the shift from reproductive to vegetative phase is reported to be independent of TNC reserves in olive trees (Bustan et al. 2011) contradicting thus the growth‐storage trade‐off theory.
For all these reasons, we suggest that TNC accumulation is not actively regulated. The accumulated fraction of TNC within the different organs of the tree will be allocated to ensure many other physiological functions besides storage (Fig. 2). We conclude that studies of C budget in trees should make a distinction between accumulated and stored pool along with the consideration of their respective roles played in tree growth and survival.
Conclusions
TNC reserves in trees could determine their vigor and ability to survive adverse conditions and to achieve high growth rates. However, the assessment of the role and significance of TNC reserves in trees should make a distinction between accumulated and stored pools. Based on many works, we demonstrated throughout the present study different behaviors of the two pools that could be attributed to the distinct roles played within plants: the role of accumulated fraction -characterized by a fast turnover rate- is to ensure annual plant metabolism and growth, whereas stored reserves -characterized by a slow turnover rate- have a substantial role in adaptive responses to C limitation allowing plant survival under a wide range of adverse environmental conditions. During acute adverse conditions, tree mortality could be due to the break-down of assimilates initially destined to defense rather than being a result of C starvation. Accumulated fraction of TNC is seasonally depleted and replenished whereas the stored fraction of TNC could be increasing throughout the whole life of the tree in normal conditions. The different dynamics of the two pools make necessary to associate the measurement of TNC concentration/content along with C age determination in studies of C budget in trees.
The high turnover rate of the accumulated pool makes it distinguishable from the process of storing (in the strict sense): it could be considered a transient pool depleted and replenished periodically that is allocated to all organs to ensure spring growth, symbiosis with soil microorganisms, defense, regeneration from a disturbance, etc. The remaining part of the accumulated pool not used for growth and metabolism will be stored to be used gradually during prolonged periods of stress. The amount of stored pool of TNC in mature trees could be higher, especially if the tree didn’t experience stressful conditions, so assessing TNC reserves as a whole could make some ambiguity in studies of carbon storage and allocation in woody plants.
Author contribution statement
BEO designed the study, made the analysis of bibliographic data and wrote the review.
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- TNC:
-
Total non-structural carbohydrates
- C:
-
Carbon
References
Adams HD, Germino MJ, Breshears DD, Barron-Gafford GA, Guardiola-Claramonte M, Zou CB, Huxman TE (2013) Nonstructural leaf carbohydrate dynamics of Pinus edulis during drought-induced tree mortality reveal role for carbon metabolism in mortality mechanism. New Phytol 197:1142–1151
Allen MT, Prusinkiewicz P, DeJong TM (2005) Using L-systems for modeling source-sink interactions, architecture and physiology of growing trees: the L-PEACH model. New Phytol 166:869–880
Anderegg WRL, Anderegg LDL (2013) Hydraulic and carbohydrate changes in experimental drought-induced mortality of saplings in two conifer species. Tree Physiol 33:252–260. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt016
Arneth A, Kelliher FM, McSeveny TM, Byers JN (1998) Net ecosystem productivity, net primary productivity and ecosystem m C sequestration in a Pinus radiata plantation subject to soil water deficit. Tree Physiol 18:785–793
Avice JC, Ourry A, Lemaire G, Boucaud J (1996) Nitrogen and C Flows Estimated by 15N and 13C Pulse-Chase Labeling during Regrowth of Alfalfa. Plant Physiol 112:281–290. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.1.281
Bansal S, Germino MJ (2008) Carbon balance of conifer seedlings at timberline: relative changes in uptake, storage, and utilization. Oecologia 158:217–227 ([PubMed: 18810499])
Berninger F, Nikinmaa E, Sievanen R, Nygren P (2000) Modelling of reserve carbohydrate dynamics, regrowth and nodulation in a N2-fixing tree managed by periodic prunings. Plant Cell Environ 23:1025–1040
Bowen BJ, Pate JS (2017) Patterns of storage tissue and starch distribution in the young taproot of obligate seeders and resprouters of Australian Proteaceae (Juss.): Possible evidence of homoplastic evolution. Austral Ecology 42(5):617–629.
Breen K, Tustin S, Palmer J, Boldingh H, Close D (2020) Revisiting the role of carbohydrate reserves in fruit set and early-season growth of apple. Scientia Horticulturae 261:109034
Bustan A, Avni A, Lavee S, Zipori I, Yeselson Y, Schaffer AA, Riov J, Dag A (2011) Role of carbohydrate reserves in yield production of intensively cultivated oil olive (Olea europaea L.) trees. Tree Physiol 31:519–530
Canadell J, López-Soria L (1998) Lignotuber reserves support regrowth following clipping of two Mediterranean shrubs. Funct Ecol 12:31–38
Canham CD, Kobe RK, Latty EF, Chazdon RL (1999) Interspecific and intraspecific variation in tree seedling survival: Effects of allocation to roots versus carbohydrate reserves. Oecologia 121:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050900
Carbone MS, Trumbore SE (2007) Contribution of new photosynthetic assimilates to respiration by perennial grasses and shrubs: residence times and allocation patterns. New Phytol 176:124–135
Carbone MS, Still CJ, Ambrose AR, Dawson TE, Williams AP et al (2011) Seasonal and episodic moisture controls on plant and microbial contributions to soil respiration. Oecologia 167:265–278
Carbone MS, Czimczik CI, Keenan TF, Murakami PF, Pederson N et al (2014) Age, allocation and availability of nonstructural C in mature red maple trees. New Phytol 200:1145–1155
Cerasoli S, Maillard P, Scartazza A, Brugnoli E, Chaves MM, Pereira JS (2004) Carbon and nitrogen winter storage and remobilisation during seasonal flush growth in two-year-old cork oak(Quercus suber L.) saplings. Ann for Sci 61:721–729
Chantuma P, Lacointe A, Kasemsap P, Thanisawanyangkura S, Gohet E, Clement A, Guilliot A, Ameglio T, Thaler P (2009) Carbohydrate storage in wood and bark of rubber trees submitted to different level of C demand induced by latex tapping. Tree Physiol 29:1021–1031
Chapin FS, Schulze ED, Mooney HA (1990) The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:423–447
Chew SJ, Bonser SP (2009) The evolution of growth rate, resource allocation and competitive ability in seeder and resprouter tree seedlings. Evol Ecol 23:723–735
Czimczik CI, Trumbore SE, Carbone MS, Winston GC (2006) Changing sources of soil respiration with time since fire in a boreal forest. Glob Change Biol 12:957–971
Da Silva D, Qin L, DeBuse C, DeJong TM (2014) Measuring and modelling seasonal patterns of carbohydrate storage and mobilization in the trunks and root crowns of peach trees. Ann Bot 114(4):643–652. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcu033
Davidson AM, Le ST, Cooper KB, Lange E, Zwieniecki MA (2021) No time to rest: seasonal dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates in twigs of three Mediterranean tree species suggest year-roundactivity. Sci Rep 11:5181. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83935-1
DeJong TM (2016) Demystifying carbohydrate allocation to storage in fruit tree. Acta Hortic 1130:329–334 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1130.49
Dietze MC, Sala A, Carbone MS, Czimczik CI, Mantooth JA, Richardson AD, Vargas R (2014) Nonstructural C in Woody Plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 65:667–687
Druege U, Zerche S, Kadner R, Ernst M (2000) Relation between nitrogen status, carbohydrate distribution and subsequent rooting of Chrysanthemum cuttings as affected by pre-harvest nitrogen supply and cold-storage. Ann Bot 85(5):687–701
Druege U, Zerche S, Kadner R (2004) Nitrogen- and storage-affected carbohydrate partitioning in high-light-adapted Pelargonium cuttings in relation to survival and adventitious root formation under low light. Ann Bot 94(6):831–842
El Omari B, Aranda X, Verdaguer D et al (2003) Resource remobilization in Quercus ilex L. resprouts. Plant Soil 252:349–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024792206369
El Zein R, Maillard P, Breda N, Marchand J, Montpied P, Gerant D (2011) Seasonal changes of C and N non-structural compounds in the stem sapwood of adult sessile oak and beech trees. Tree Physiol 31:843–854
Epron D, Ngao J, Dannoura M et al (2011) Seasonal variations of belowground C transfer assessed by in situ 13CO2 pulse labelling of trees. Biogeosciences 8:1153–1168
Eyles A, Pinkard EA, Mohammed C (2009) Shifts in biomass and resource allocation patterns following defoliation in Eucalyptus globulus growing with varying water and nutrient supplies. Tree Physiol 29:753–764
Fatichi S, Leuzinger S, Körner C (2014) Moving beyond photosynthesis: from carbon source to sink-driven vegetation modeling. New Phytol 201:1086–1095
Fischer S, Hanf S, Frosch T, Gleixner G, Popp J, Trumbore S, Hartmann H (2015) Pinus sylvestris switches respiration substrates under shading but not during drought. New Phytol 207:542–550
Fitter AH, Hay RKM (2002) Environmental physiology of plants, 3d edn. Academic Press, London
Furze ME, Huggett BA, Aubrecht DM, Stolz CD, Carbone MS, Richardson AD (2019) Whole-tree nonstructural carbohydrate storage and seasonal dynamics in five temperate species. New Phytol 221:1466–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15462
Furze ME, Huggett BA, Chamberlain CJ, Wieringa MM, Aubrecht DM, Carbone MS, Walker JC, Xu X, Czimczik CI, Richardson AD (2020) Seasonal fluctuation of nonstructural carbohydrates reveals the metabolic availability of stemwood reserves in temperate trees with contrasting wood anatomy. Tree Physiol 40(10):1355–1365. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaa080
Galiano L, Martinez-Vilalta J, Lloret F (2011) Carbon reserves and canopy defoliation determine the recovery of Scots pine 4 yr after a drought episode. New Phytol 190:750–759
Galvez DA, Landhäusser SM, Tyree MT (2011) Root carbon reserve dynamics in aspen seedlings: does simulated drought induce reserve limitation? Tree Physiol 31:250–257
Galvez DA, Landhausser SM, Tyree MT (2013) Low root reserve accumulation during drought may lead to winter mortality in poplar seedlings. New Phytol 198:139–148
Gaudinski JB, Torn MS, Riley WJ, Swanston C, Trumbore SE, Joslin JD, Majdi H, Dawson TE, Hanson PJ (2009) Use of stored carbon reserves in growth of temperate tree roots and leaf buds: analyses using radiocarbon measurements and modeling. Glob Change Biol 15:992–1014
Genet H, Bréda N, Dufrêne E (2010) Age-related variation in carbon allocation at tree and stand scales in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.) using a chronosequence approach. Tree Physiol 30:177–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpp105
Gibon Y, Bläsing OE, Palacios-Rojas N, Pankovic D, Hendriks JH, Fisahn J, Höhne M, Gunther M, Stitt M (2004) Adjustment of diurnal starch turnover to short days, depletion of sugar during the night leads to a temporary inhibition of carbohydrate utilization, accumulation of sugars and post-translational activation of ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase in the following light period. Plant J 39:847–862
Gordon AJ, Ryle GJA, Powell CE, Mitchell D (1980) Export, mobilization and respiration of assimilates in Uniculm barley during light and darkness. J Exp Bot 31:461–473
Gougherty AV, Gougherty SW (2018) Sequence of flower and leaf emergence in deciduous trees is linked to ecological traits, phylogenetics, and climate. New Phytol 220:121–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15270
Grainger J (1939) Studies upon the time of flowering of plants: Anatomical, floristic and phenological aspects of the problem. Ann Appl Biol 26:684–704
Hartmann H, Trumbore S (2016) Understanding the roles of nonstructural carbohydrates in forest trees - from what we can measure to what we want to know. New Phytol 211(2):386–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13955
Hartmann H, Ziegler W, Trumbore S (2013) Lethal drought leads to reduction in nonstructural carbohydrates in Norway spruce tree roots but not in the canopy. Funct Ecol 27:413–427
Hartmann H, Adams HD, Hammond WM, Hoch G, Landhäusser SM, Wiley E et al (2018) Identifying differences in carbohydrate dynamics of seedlings and mature trees to improve carbon allocation in models for trees and forests. Environ Exp Bot 152:7–18
Helle G, Schleser GH (2004) Beyond CO2-fixation by Rubisco – an interpretation of 13C/12C variations in tree rings form novel intra-seasonal studies on broad-leaf trees. Plant Cell Environ 27:367–380
Hoch G (2007) Cell wall hemicelluloses as mobile C stores in non-reproductive plant tissues. Funct Ecol 21:823–834
Hoch G, Richter A, Körner C (2003) Non-structural carbon compounds in temperate forest trees. Plant Cell Environ 26:1067–1081
Högberg P, Högberg MN, Göttlicher SG, Betson NR, Keel SG et al (2008) High temporal resolution tracing of photosynthate C from the tree canopy to forest soil microorganisms. New Phytol 177:220–228
Kagawa A, Sugimoto A, Trofim CM (2006) Seasonal course of translocation, storage and remobilization of 13C pulse-labeled photoassimilate in naturally growing Larix gmelinii saplings. New Phytol 171:793–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01780.x
Keel SG, Siegwolf RTW, Jäggi M, Körner C (2007) Rapid mixing between old and new C pools in the canopy of mature forest trees. Plant Cell Environ 30:963–972
Klein T, Hoch G, Yakir D, Körner C (2014) Drought stress, growth and nonstructural carbohydrate dynamics of pine trees in a semi-arid forest. Tree Physiol 34(9):981–992. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu071
Kobe RK (1997) Carbohydrate allocation to storage as a basis of interspecific variation in sapling survivorship and growth. Oikos 80:226–233
Körner C (2015) Paradigm shift in plant growth control. Curr Opin Plant Biol 25:107–114
Kozlowski TT (1992) Carbohydrate sources and sinks in woody plants. Bot Rev 58:107–222
Kuptz D, Fleischmann F, Matyssek R, Grams TEE (2011) Seasonal patterns of carbon allocation to respiratory pools in 60-yr-old deciduous (Fagus sylvatica) and evergreen (Picea abies) trees assessed via whole-tree stable carbon isotope labeling. New Phytol 191:160–172
Lacointe A, Deleens E, Ameglio T, Saint-Joanis B, Lelarge C, Vandame M, Song GC, Daudet FA (2004) Testing the branch autonomy theory: a 13C/14C double-labelling experiment on differentially shaded branches. Plant Cell Environ 27:1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2004.01221.x
Launay M, Graux AI, Brisson N, Guerif M (2009) Carbohydrate remobilization from storage root to leaves after a stress release in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.): Experimental and modelling approaches. J Agr Sci 147(6):669–682. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859609990116
Le Roux X, Lacointe A, Escobar-Gutierrez A, Le Dizès S (2001) C-based models of individual tree growth: a critical appraisal. Ann for Sci 58:469–506
Maguire AJ, Kobe RK (2015) Drought and shade deplete nonstructural carbohydrate reserves in seedlings of five temperate tree species. Ecol Evol 5(23):5711–5721. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1819
Margolis HA, Waring RH (1986) Carbon and nitrogen allocation patterns of Douglas-fir seedlings fertilized with nitrogen in autumn. II. Field performance. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16(5):903–909. https://doi.org/10.1139/x86-161
McCarroll D, Whitney M, Young GHF, Loader NJ, Gagen MH (2017) A simple stable carbon isotope method for investigating changes in the use of recent versus old carbon in oak. Tree Physiol 37(8):1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx030
McDowell NG (2011) Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, C metabolism, and vegetation mortality. Plant Physiol 155:1051–1059
Millard P, Grelet G (2010) Nitrogen storage and remobilization by trees: ecophysiological relevance in a changing world. Tree Physiol 30(9):1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpq042
Mitchell PJ, O’Grady AP, Tissue DT, White DA, Ottenschlaeger ML, Pinkard EA (2013) Drought response strategies define the relative contributions of hydraulic dysfunction and carbohydrate depletion during tree mortality. New Phytol 197:862–872
Morvan-Bertrand A, Pavis N, Boucaud J, Prud’homme MP, (1999) Partitioning of reserve and newly assimilated carbon in roots and leaf tissues of Lolium perenne during regrowth after defoliation: assessment by 13C steady-state labelling and carbohydrate analysis. Plant Cell Environ 22:1097–1108
Muhr J, Angert A, Juárez RN, Muñoz WA, Kraemer G, Chambers JQ, Trumbore SE (2013) Carbon dioxide emitted from live stems of tropical trees is several years old. Tree Physiol 33(7):743–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt049
Muller B, Pantin F, Génard M, Turc O, Freixes S, Piques M, Gibon Y (2011) Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase carbon content, and modify the relationships between carbon and growth in sink organs. J Exp Bot 62:1715–1729
Navarro MNV, Jourdan C, Sileye T, Braconnier S, Mialet-Serra I, Saint-Andre L, Dauzat J, Nouvellon Y, Epron D, Bonnefond JM et al (2008) Fruit development, not GPP, drives seasonal variation in NPP in a tropical palm plantation. Tree Physiol 28:1661–1674
O’Brien MJ, Leuzinger S, Philipson CD, Tay J, Hector A (2014) Drought survival of tropical tree seedlings enhanced by non-structural carbohydrate levels. Nature Clim Change 4:710–714
Ogee J, Barbour MM, Wingate L, Bert D, Bosc A et al (2009) A single-substrate model to interpret intra-annual stable isotope signals in tree-ring cellulose. Plant Cell Environ 32:1071–1090
Ogle K, Pacala SW (2009) A modeling framework for inferring tree growth and allocation from physiological, morphological and allometric traits. Tree Physiol 29:587–605
Palacio S, Paterson E, Hester AJ, Nogués S, Lino G, Anadon-Rosell A, Maestro M, Millard P (2020) No preferential carbon-allocation to storage over growth in clipped birch and oak saplings. Tree Physiol 40(5):621–636. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaa011.PMID:32050021;PMCID:PMC7201831
Pate JS, Froend RH, Bowen BJ, Hansen A, Kuo J (1990) Seedling Growth and Storage Characteristics of Seeder and Resprouter Species of Mediterranean-type Ecosystems of S. W Australia Annals of Botany 65(6):585–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087976
Paula S, Naulin PI, Arce C et al (2016) Lignotubers in Mediterranean basin plants. Plant Ecol 217:661–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-015-0538-9
Piper FI (2020) Decoupling between growth rate and storage remobilization in broadleaf temperate tree species. Funct Ecol 34:1180–1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13552
Piper FI, Paula S (2020) The Role of Nonstructural Carbohydrates Storage in Forest Resilience under Climate Change. Curr Forestry Rep 6:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00109-z
Piper FI, Fajardo A, Hoch G (2017) Single-provenance mature conifers show higher non-structural carbohydrate storage and reduced growth in a drier location. Tree Physiol 37(8):1001–1010. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx061
Poorter H, Pepin S, Rijkers T, De Jong Y, Evans JR, Körner C (2006) Construction costs, chemical composition and payback time of high- and low-irradiance leaves. J Exp Bot 57:355–371
Pratt RB, Jacobsen AL, Ewers FW, Davis SD (2007) Relationships among xylem transport, biomechanics and storage in stems and roots of nine Rhamnaceae species of the California chaparral. New Phytol 174:787–798
Puri E, Hoch G, Körner C (2015) Defoliation reduces growth but not carbon reserves in Mediterranean Pinus pinaster. Trees 29:1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-015-1199-y
Richardson AD, Carbone MS, Keenan TF, Czimczik CI, Hollinger DY et al (2013) Seasonal dynamics and age of stemwood nonstructural carbohydrates in temperate forest trees. New Phytol 197:850–861
Richardson AD, Carbone MS, Huggett BA, Furze ME, Czimczik CI, Walker JC, Xu X, Schaberg PG, Murakami P (2015) Distribution and mixing of old and new nonstructural C in two temperate trees. New Phytol 206:590–597
Rocha AV, Goulden ML (2009) Why is marsh productivity so high? New insights from eddy covariance and biomass measurements in a Typha marsh. Agric for Meteorol 149:159–168
Ryan MG (2011) Tree responses to drought. Tree Physiol 31(3):237–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr022
Ryan MG, Binkley D, Fownes JH (1997) Age-related decline in forest productivity: pattern and process. Adv Ecol Res 27:213–262
Sala A, Woodruff DR, Meinzer FC (2012) Carbon dynamics in trees: feast or famine? Tree Physiol 32(6):764–775. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr143
Scartazza A, Moscatello S, Matteucci G, Battistelli A, Brugnoli E (2013) Seasonal and inter-annual dynamics of growth, non-structural carbohydrates and C stable isotopes in a Mediterranean beech forest. Tree Physiol 33(7):730–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt045
Schaberg PG, Snyder MC, Shane JB, Donnelly JR (2000) Seasonal patterns of carbohydrate reserves in red spruce seedlings. Tree Physiol 20(8):549–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/20.8.549
Schädel C, Blöchl A, Richter A, Hoch G (2009) Short-term dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates and hemicelluloses in young branches of temperate forest trees during bud break. Tree Physiol 29:901–911
Schaefer K, Collatz GJ, Tans P, Denning AS, Baker I et al (2008) Combined Simple Biosphere/Carnegie Ames-Stanford Approach terrestrial carbon cycle model. J Geophys Res 113:G03034
Schmid S, Palacio S, Hoch G (2017) Growth reduction after defoliation is independent of CO2 supply in deciduous and evergreen young oaks. New Phytol 214:1479–1490. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14484
Schutz AEN, Bond WJ, Cramer MD (2009) Juggling carbon: allocation patterns of a dominant tree in a fire-prone savanna. Oecologia 160(2):235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1293-1
Schuur EAG, Trumbore SE (2006) Partitioning sources of soil respiration in boreal black spruce forest using radiocarbon. Glob Change Biol 12:165–176
Schwilk DW, Ackerly DD (2005) Is there a cost to resprouting? Seedling growth rate and drought tolerance in sprouting and nonsprouting Ceanothus (Rhamnaceae). Am J Bot 92:404–410
Silpi U, Lacointe A, Kasempsap P, Thanysawanyangkura S, Chantuma P, Gohet E, Musigamart N, Clément A, Améglio T, Thaler P (2007) Carbohydrate reserves as a competing sink: evidence from tapping rubber trees. Tree Physiol 27:881–889
Smith SE, Smith FA (2012) Fresh perspectives on the roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant nutrition and growth. Mycologia 104(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3852/11-229
Spann TM, Beede RH, DeJong TM (2008) Seasonal carbohydrate storage and mobilization in bearing and non-bearing pistachio (Pistacia vera) trees. Tree Physiol 28(2):207–213
Tromp J (1983) Nutrient reserves in roots of fruit trees, in particular carbohydrates and nitrogen. Plants 71:401. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02182682
Trumbore S, Czimczik CI, Sierra CA, Muhr J, Xu X (2015) Non-structural carbon dynamics and allocation relate to growth rate and leaf habit in California oaks. Tree Physiol 35(11):1206–1222. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv097
Verdaguer D, Ojeda F (2002) Root starch storage and allocation patterns in seeder and resprouter seedlings of two Cape Erica (Ericaceae) species. Am J Bot 89:1189–1196
Vilela AE, Agüero PR, Ravetta D, González-Paleo L (2016) Long-term effect of carbohydrate reserves on growth and reproduction of Prosopis denudans (Fabaceae): implications for conservation of woody perennials. Conserv Physiol 4(1):cov068. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cov068
Warren JM, Iversen CM, Garten CT, Norby RJ, Childs J et al (2012) Timing and magnitude of carbon partitioning through a young loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) stand using 13C labeling and shade treatments. Tree Physiol 32:799–813
Wiley E, Helliker B (2012) A re-evaluation of carbon storage in trees lends greater support for carbon limitation to growth. New Phytol 195:285–289
Wiley E, Huepenbecker S, Casper BB, Helliker BR (2013) The effects of defoliation on carbon allocation: can carbon limitation reduce growth in favour of storage? Tree Physiol 33:1216–1228
Willaume M, Pagès L (2011) Correlated responses of root growth and sugar concentrations to various defoliation treatments and rhythmic shoot growth in oak tree seedlings (Quercus pubescens). Ann Bot 107(4):653–662
Würth MKR, Pelaez-Riedl S, Wright SJ, Korner C (2005) Non-structural carbohydrate pools in a tropical forest. Oecologia 143:11–24
Wyka TP, Karolewski P, Żytkowiak R, Chmielarz P, Oleksyn J (2016) Whole-plant allocation to storage and defense in juveniles of related evergreen and deciduous shrub species. Tree Physiol 36(5):536–547. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv108
Acknowledgements
We thank Mrs. Dolors Verdaguer (University of Girona) for feedback on a previous version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author, Bouchra El Omari declares that there is no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Lin.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
El Omari, B. Accumulation versus storage of total non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants. Trees 36, 869–881 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-021-02240-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-021-02240-6