2010
DOI: 10.2110/palo.2009.p09-129r
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leaf Margin Analysis: A New Equation From Humid to Mesic Forests in China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
65
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
65
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The other techniques were used to predict palaeoclimatic proxy-datasets based on physiognomic characters of foliage (LMA, CLAMP) and environmental requirements of the nearlest living relatives (CA) of the studied fossil floras. The present study used linear regression equations by Wolfe (1979) -LMA MAT 1 = 30.6 × P + 1.41; (r 2 = 0.98), and by Su et al (2010) -LMA MAT 2 = 27.6 × P + 1.038; (r 2 = 0.79) for LMA method, where MAT (mean annual temperature), P (proportion of n species with entire margin, 0 < P < 1) and r 2 (coefficient of determination). To verify the obtained estimates, the value of sampling errors (SE1) and (SE2) were calculated following Wilf (1997) Miller et al (2006) -SE 2 MAT = √([1 + ϕ (n-1) P(1-P)] × (P(1-P))/n), where the following symbols are used: c (slope of the MAT vs. leaf margin regression, equals 30.6 here), n (total species number), P (proportion of n species with entire margin, 0 < P < 1) and ϕ = 0.052 (dispersion factor).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The other techniques were used to predict palaeoclimatic proxy-datasets based on physiognomic characters of foliage (LMA, CLAMP) and environmental requirements of the nearlest living relatives (CA) of the studied fossil floras. The present study used linear regression equations by Wolfe (1979) -LMA MAT 1 = 30.6 × P + 1.41; (r 2 = 0.98), and by Su et al (2010) -LMA MAT 2 = 27.6 × P + 1.038; (r 2 = 0.79) for LMA method, where MAT (mean annual temperature), P (proportion of n species with entire margin, 0 < P < 1) and r 2 (coefficient of determination). To verify the obtained estimates, the value of sampling errors (SE1) and (SE2) were calculated following Wilf (1997) Miller et al (2006) -SE 2 MAT = √([1 + ϕ (n-1) P(1-P)] × (P(1-P))/n), where the following symbols are used: c (slope of the MAT vs. leaf margin regression, equals 30.6 here), n (total species number), P (proportion of n species with entire margin, 0 < P < 1) and ϕ = 0.052 (dispersion factor).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CLAMP method uses the physiognomic characteristics of the Roudníky assemblage presented in Appendix 1 and 144 physiognomic and gridded meteorological calibration datasets (Physg3brcAZ, GRIDMet3brAZ) selected by a new statistical tool published by Teodoridis et al (2012). The palaeoclimatic proxy-datasets for the Roudníky are as follows: CLAMP estimates -MAT 10.0°C, WMMT 21.6°C, CMMT 0.0°C, 3-WET 82.3 cm and 3-DRY 13.7 cm; LMA estimates -MAT 1 is 9.5°C (sensu Wolfe 1979) and MAT 2 is 8.4°C (sensu Su et al 2010), and values of the sampling error sensu Miller et al (2006) is 2.5°C and 2.4°C sensu Wilf (1997); CA proxy data intervals: MAT 13.6-18.0°C, WMMT 23.6-27.1°C, CMMT 1.8-10.0°C, and MAP 979-1355 mm (see Tables 2, 3 Tables 2, 3. The results of LMA from Český Chloumek, Haselbach and Knau were excluded due to a low number of the evaluated taxa (from 9 to 13) which is also obvious from the values of the sampling errors (SE 1, SE 2) exceeding 3.9°C (Table 2).…”
Section: Palaeoclimatic Proxy-datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A -MAT (LMA 1) = 1.41 + 30.6 P, (r 2 = 0.98) sensu Wolfe (1979) [°C]; B -MAT (LMA 2) = 27.6 P + 1.038, (r 2 = 0.79) sensu Su et al (2010) K -SE 2MAT= √([1 + φ (n-1) P(1-P)]×(P(1-P))/n) sensu Miller et al (2006 …”
Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The leaf margin, toothed vs. untoothed, is one of the most widely applied plant traits in palaeobotany due to its extensive use as an environmental proxy for MAT Sinnott, 1915, 1916;Wilf, 1997;Greenwood et al, 2004;Su et al, 2010;Hinojosa et al, 2011;Royer et al, 2012). Altogether, approximately 3200 fossil specimens are currently available for determination of leaf margin characters.…”
Section: Leaf Marginmentioning
confidence: 99%