Leaf Form and Photosynthesis

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience. Morphological and anatomical features of plant leaves are commonly associated with metabolic type (e.g., Kranz anatomy of C4 species), amount of sun exposure (e.g., sun and shade leaves), or water stress (e.g., xeromorphism). However, although the primary function of the leaf is to absorb and process sunlight and carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, few structural features of leaves have been related mechanistically to these tasks. For example, it has been known for over a century that the internal anatomy of leaves is characterized by different cell layers (e.g., the palisade and spongy mesophyll) and that stomatal pores can be located on one or both sides of a leaf. Yet, only recently has any functional relationship between leaf form and photosynthetic performance been suggested.A variety of ecological studies have correlated numerous leaf structural parameters with photosynthetic performance (e.g., Abrams and Kubiske 1990, 1994, Hinckley et al. 1989, William K. Smith (e-mail: wksmith@uwyo. edu) and Thomas C. Vogelmann (e-mail: tvogel@uwyo.edu) are professors in the

Gochnatia polymorpha (Less.) Cabrera (Asteraceae) changes in leaf structure due to differences in light and edaphic conditions

“…When compared to shade leaves, sun leaves have a higher mesophyll proportion and stomatal frequency. Smith et al (1997) suggest that the presence in shaded environments of thin laminar leaves, with stomata only on the abaxial surface, may have evolved as a result of selective pressure to enhance light capture while avoiding the detrimental effect of exposing the stomata directly to sunlight and minimizing transpirational water-loss. Possibly, differences in leaf anatomy could bring physiological adaptations to different light levels (Dias et al 2007).…”

Generality of relationships between leaf pigment contents and spectral vegetation indices in Mallorca (Spain)

“…Different leaf structures as sclereids, leaf bundle sheath extensions, cell walls, and mesophyll cells have been described as traits affecting the spectral properties of leaves (Poulson and Vogelmann 1990;Smith et al 1997;Nikolopoulos et al 2002). We found the strongest difference between monocot and dicot leaves which required separate regression slopes for accurate estimation of pigment contents from leaf reflectance.…”

“…On the other hand, dicots present a clear differentiation between spongy and palisade mesophyll. In that case, besides spongy tissue that favors light scattering, palisade cells canalize light into lower mesophyll layers (Vogelmann et al 1996;Smith et al 1997). Moreover, the leaf thickness influences in the number of cells per leaf area, and consequently, the chlorophyll content (Tosens et al 2012).…”

Albedo estimates for land surface models and support for a new paradigm based on foliage nitrogen concentration

“…Woolley, 1971) on a firm quantitative basis. Factors other than A mes /A such as leaf thickness and type of mesophyll structure also vary with photosynthetic capacity (Smith et al, 1997) and likely also affect leaf scattering and hence albedo. It is interesting to observe how suites of characters that evolved to address leaf-scale processes interact to affect properties of the land surface boundary of the climate system.…”