cool experimental approach to explain elevational treelines, but can it explain them?

• Published in: American journal of botany Vol. 101; no. 9; pp. 1403 - 1408
• Main Authors: Bader, Maaike Y, Loranger, Hannah, Zotz, Gerhard
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Botanical Society of America 01.09.2014; Botanical Society of America, Inc
• Subjects: alpine tree line; Altitude; Botany; Canopies; carbon; Carbon - metabolism; carbon balance; Climate; climatic factors; COMMENTARY; Drought; ecophysiology; Ecosystem; Experimental methods; Experiments; Forest canopy; Fuscospora; growth limitation; Low temperature; methodology; Microclimate; micrometeorology; Morphology; Nothofagus; Pine trees; Pinus; Plant growth; Plant Leaves; Plant Roots; Plant species; Seedlings; Soil temperature regimes; Taxa; Temperature; timberline; Timberlines; Tree growth; Treeline; Trees; Trees - growth & development; Vegetation; Nothofagus; timberline; alpine tree line; growth limitation; micrometeorology; carbon balance; Pinus; ecophysiology; methodology; Fuscospora
• ISSN: 0002-9122; 1537-2197; 1537-2197
• DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1400256

At alpine treeline, trees give way to low-stature alpine vegetation. The main reason may be that tree canopies warm up less in the sun and experience lower average temperatures than alpine vegetation. Low growth temperatures limit tissue formation more than carbon gain, but whether this mechanism universally determines potential treeline elevations is the subject of debate. To study low-temperature limitation in two contrasting treeline tree species, Fajardo and Piper (American Journal of Botany 101: 788–795) grew potted seedlings at ground level or suspended at tree-canopy height (2 m), introducing a promising experimental method for studying the effects of alpine-vegetation and tree-canopy microclimates on tree growth. On the basis of this experiment, the authors concluded that lower temperatures at 2 m caused carbon limitation in one of the species and that treeline-forming mechanisms may thus be taxon-dependent. Here we contest that this important conclusion can be drawn based on the presented experiment, because of confounding effects of extreme root-zone temperature fluctuations and potential drought conditions. To interpret the results of this elegant experiment without logistically challenging technical modifications and to better understand how low temperature leads to treeline formation, studies on effects of fluctuating vs. stable temperatures are badly needed. Other treeline research priorities are interactions between temperature and other climatic factors and differences in microclimate between tree canopies with contrasting morphology and physiology. In spite of our criticism of this particular study, we agree that the development of a universal treeline theory should include continuing explorations of taxon-specific treeline-forming mechanisms.