Scaling relationships of leaf vein and areole traits versus leaf size for nine Magnoliaceae species differing in venation density

Shi, Peijian; Miao, Qinyue; Niinemets, Ülo; Liu, Mengdi; Li, Yirong; Yu, Kexin; Niklas, Karl J.

doi:10.1002/ajb2.1856

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Leaves are the most active and primary photosynthetic plant organ (Elser et al, 2010 ; Yang et al, 2019 ), their size and structure exhibit a tradeoff between the support cost and photosynthetic returns during plant adaptation to environmental changes (Shi et al, 2020 , 2022 ; Guo et al, 2021 ; Li et al, 2022a , b ), and leaf stoichiometry can reflect the tradeoff formed in this evolution from the angle of leaf chemical elements and its spatio-temporal variations (Baxter and Dilkes, 2012 ; Cao et al, 2020 ; Zhu et al, 2020 ). Leaf C/N and C/P were widely accepted as effective indicators of plants' N and P use efficiency and growth rate, and their lower values indicated lower nutrient utilization efficiency and higher plant growth (Weidner et al, 2015 ; Sun et al, 2017 ; Cao et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of leaf stoichiometry of Potentilla anserina to elevation in China's Qilian Mountains

Zhang

Qi²,

Cao³

et al. 2022

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants adapt to changes in elevation by regulating their leaf ecological stoichiometry. Potentilla anserina L. that grows rapidly under poor or even bare soil conditions has become an important ground cover plant for ecological restoration. However, its leaf ecological stoichiometry has been given little attention, resulting in an insufficient understanding of its environmental adaptability and growth strategies. The objective of this study was to compare the leaf stoichiometry of P. anserina at different elevations (2,400, 2,600, 2,800, 3,000, 3,200, 3,500, and 3,800 m) in the middle eastern part of Qilian Mountains. With an increase in elevation, leaf carbon concentration [(C)leaf] significantly decreased, with the maximum value of 446.04 g·kg−1 (2,400 m) and the minimum value of 396.78 g·kg−1 (3,500 m). Leaf nitrogen concentration [(N)leaf] also increased with an increase in elevation, and its maximum and minimum values were 37.57 g·kg−1 (3,500 m) and 23.71 g·kg−1 (2,800 m), respectively. Leaf phosphorus concentration [(P)leaf] was the highest (2.79 g·kg−1) at 2,400 m and the lowest (0.91 g·kg−1) at 2,800 m. The [C]leaf/[N]leaf decreased with an increase in elevation, while [N]leaf/[P]leaf showed an opposite trend. The mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, soil pH, organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus at different elevations mainly affected [C]leaf, [N]leaf, and [P]leaf. The growth of P. anserina in the study area was mainly limited by P, and this limitation was stronger with increased elevation. Progressively reducing P loss at high elevation is of great significance to the survival of P. anserina in this specific region.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of leaf stoichiometry of Potentilla anserina to elevation in China's Qilian Mountains

Zhang

Qi²,

Cao³

et al. 2022

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For many plant species groups, the numerical values of α exceed unity, which indicates that leaf mass increases at a faster rate than leaf area, a phenomenon referred to as “diminishing returns” ( Milla and Reich, 2007 ; Niklas et al., 2007 ; Sun et al., 2017 ). A widely accepted explanation is that larger leaves require a disproportionately larger amount of non-photosynthetic tissues, which results in an increased biomass-cost to support leaf area ( Niklas, 1994 ; Niklas et al., 2009 ; Sack et al., 2012 ; Shi et al., 2022a ). The concept of diminishing returns is important to understand the energy allocation and variation among leaves from different species, which can affect ecosystem processes especially light capture ( Westoby and Wright, 2003 ; Koester et al., 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diminishing returns: A comparison between fresh mass vs. area and dry mass vs. area in deciduous species

Guo

Niklas

et al. 2022

Front. Plant Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Diminishing returns” in leaf economics occurs when increases in lamina mass (M), which can either be represented by lamina dry mass (DM) or fresh mass (FM), fail to produce proportional increases in leaf surface area (A), such that the scaling exponent (α) for the M vs. A scaling relationship exceeds unity (i.e., α > 1.0). Prior studies have shown that FM vs. A is better than DM vs A in assessing diminishing returns in evergreen species. However, the superiority of FM vs. A over DM vs. A has been less well examined for deciduous species. Here, we applied reduced major axis protocols to test whether FM vs. A is better than DM vs. A to describe the M vs. A scaling relationship, using a total of 4271 leaves from ten deciduous and two evergreen tree species in the Fagaceae and Ulmaceae for comparison. The significance of the difference between the scaling exponents of FM vs. A and DM vs. A was tested using the bootstrap percentile method. Further, we tested the non-linearity of the FM (DM) vs. A data on a log-log scale using ordinary least squares. We found that (i) the majority of scaling exponents of FM vs. A and DM vs. A were >1 thereby confirming diminishing returns for all 12 species, (ii) FM vs. A was more robust than DM vs. A to identify the M vs. A scaling relationship, (iii) the non-linearity of the allometric model was significant for both DM vs. A and FM vs. A., and (iv) the evergreen species of Fagaceae had significantly higher DM and FM per unit area than other deciduous species. In summary, FM vs. A is a more reliable measure than DM vs. A when dealing with diminishing returns, and deciduous species tend to invest less biomass in unit leaf light harvesting area than evergreen species.

show abstract

“…However, the empirical estimates for the scaling exponent of leaf area vs. leaf length for complex leaf shapes (especially those with lobes) can deviate from 2 ( Shi et al, 2019 ; Yu et al, 2019 , 2020 ). However, for elliptical, oval, and oboval leaf shapes, the principle of similarity has been confirmed ( Shi et al, 2022b ). Because the leaves of Q. pannosa exhibit elliptical and oboval shapes, it was nevertheless necessary to check whether it follows the principle of similarity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree Size Influences Leaf Shape but Does Not Affect the Proportional Relationship Between Leaf Area and the Product of Length and Width

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Montgomery equation predicts leaf area as the product of leaf length and width multiplied by a correction factor. It has been demonstrated to apply to a variety of leaf shapes. However, it is unknown whether tree size (measured as the diameter at breast height) affects leaf shape and size, or whether such variations in leaf shape can invalidate the Montgomery equation in calculating leaf area. Here, we examined 60 individual trees of the alpine oak (Quercus pannosa) in two growth patterns (trees growing from seeds vs. growing from roots), with 30 individuals for each site. Between 100 and 110 leaves from each tree were used to measure leaf dry mass, leaf area, length, and width, and to calculate the ellipticalness index, ratio of area between the two sides of the lamina, and the lamina centroid ratio. We tested whether tree size affects leaf shape, size, and leaf dry mass per unit area, and tested whether the Montgomery equation is valid for calculating leaf area of the leaves from different tree sizes. The diameters at breast height of the trees ranged from 8.6 to 96.4 cm (tree height ranged from 3 to 32 m). The diameter at breast height significantly affected leaf shape, size, and leaf dry mass per unit area. Larger trees had larger and broader leaves with lower leaf dry mass per unit area, and the lamina centroid was closer to the leaf apex than the leaf base. However, the variation in leaf size and shape did not negate the validity of the Montgomery equation. Thus, regardless of tree size, the proportional relationship between leaf area and the product of leaf length and width can be used to calculate the area of the leaves.

show abstract

Scaling relationships of leaf vein and areole traits versus leaf size for nine Magnoliaceae species differing in venation density

Cited by 19 publications

References 48 publications

Response of leaf stoichiometry of Potentilla anserina to elevation in China's Qilian Mountains

Response of leaf stoichiometry of Potentilla anserina to elevation in China's Qilian Mountains

Diminishing returns: A comparison between fresh mass vs. area and dry mass vs. area in deciduous species

Tree Size Influences Leaf Shape but Does Not Affect the Proportional Relationship Between Leaf Area and the Product of Length and Width

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About