Reply to Elmendorf and Ettinger: Photoperiod plays a dominant and irreplaceable role in triggering secondary growth resumption
Reply to Elmendorf and Ettinger: Photoperiod plays a dominant and irreplaceable role in triggering secondary growth resumption
复制标题
回复Elmendorf和Ettinger：光周期在触发二次生长恢复中起着主导且不可替代的作用
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2019931117
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Rossi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jianguo Huang;F. Campelo;Q. Ma;Yaling Zhang;Y. Bergeron;A. Deslauriers;P. Fonti;Eryuan Liang;H. Mäkinen;W. Oberhuber;C. Rathgeber;R. Tognetti;V. Treml;Bao Yang;Lihong Zhai;Jiao‐Lin Zhang;S. Antonucci;J. Camarero;K. Čufar;H. Cuny;M. de Luis;A. Giovannelli;J. Gričar;A. Gruber;V. Gryc;A. Güney;Xiali Guo;Wei Huang;T. Jyske;J. Kašpar;Gregory King;C. Krause;A. Lemay;Feng Liu;F. Lombardi;Edurne Martinez del Castillo;H. Morin;C. Nabais;P. Nöjd;R. L. Peters;P. Prislan;A. Saracino;Irene Swidrak;H. Vavrčík;J. Vieira;Biyun Yu;Shaokang Zhang;Qiao Zeng;Emanuele Ziaco;S. Rossi
Elmendorf和Ettinger(1)在他们的信中质疑了Huang等人最近报道的光周期在推动北半球针叶树次生生长恢复（以下简称木质部形成开始）中的主导作用(2)。他们的观点基于以下三个方面，包括1)光周期的季节性，2)预测变量（如光周期、强迫和冷却）对响应变量（木质部开始形成的日期、一年中的一天[DOY]）的依赖性，以及3)所获得的年际预测模型的有限值。我们认为他们提出了一个值得进一步讨论和澄清的有趣问题。
In their Letter, Elmendorf and Ettinger (1) question the dominant role of photoperiod in driving secondary growth resumption (hereafter referred to as xylem formation onset) of the Northern Hemisphere conifers, recently reported by Huang et al. (2). Their opinions are grounded on the following three aspects, including 1) the seasonality of the photoperiod, 2) the dependence of the predictor variables (e.g., photoperiod, forcing, and chilling) on the response variable (the date of onset of xylem formation, day of the year [DOY]), and 3) the limited value of the obtained models for interannual forecasting. We think they bring up an interesting issue that deserves further discussion and clarification.
Photoperiod is acknowledged to regulate spring bud swelling while wood formation starts (3, 4). Although photoperiod seasonality occurs at each site, its influence is marginal in our study given that the analysis involved comparisons among sites across the Northern Hemisphere. Our conclusion that photoperiod plays a dominant role was built upon the combination of several coherent pieces of evidence, rather than “the crux of Huang et al….” as they pointed out. First, we clearly stated that model 2, which modeled DOY as a function of the mean annual temperature of the site (MAT), forcing, chilling, and soil moisture, was considered the best model in terms of parsimony according to minimum Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion, rather than R 2 as referred to in their Letter. Second, photoperiod interacted with MAT and can explain 61.7% of the variance of MAT alone (2). Therefore, we concluded that secondary growth resumption was driven primarily by MAT and photoperiod or by their interaction, which is challenging to be disentangled without experimental data, we agree. In terms of biological functioning, they play an undoubtedly …
[↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: huangjg{at}scbg.ac.cn.
[1]: #xref-corresp-1-1
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2007058117
发表时间：
2020-08-25
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Huang, Jian-Guo;Ma, Qianqian;Ziaco, Emanuele
通讯作者：
Ziaco, Emanuele