Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on June 22, 2007
Annals of Botany 2007 100(2):283-303; doi:10.1093/aob/mcm107
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/2/283    most recent
mcm107v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niinemets, U.
Right arrow Articles by Valladares, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niinemets, U.
Right arrow Articles by Valladares, F.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Niinemets, U.
Right arrow Articles by Valladares, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Do we Underestimate the Importance of Leaf Size in Plant Economics? Disproportional Scaling of Support Costs Within the Spectrum of Leaf Physiognomy

Ülo Niinemets1,2,*, Angelika Portsmuth1, David Tena3, Mari Tobias1, Silvia Matesanz3 and Fernando Valladares3

1 Department of Plant Physiology, University of Tartu, Riia 23, Tartu 51010, Estonia
2 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1 Tartu 51014, Estonia
3 Instituto de Recursos Naturales, Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, C.S.I.C., Serrano 115 dpdo. 28006 Madrid, Spain

* For correspondence. E-mail: ylo{at}emu.ee

Received: 2 February 2007    Returned for revision: 13 March 2007    Accepted: 19 April 2007    Published electronically: 22 June 2007

Background: Broad scaling relationships between leaf size and function do not take into account that leaves of different size may contain different fractions of support in petiole and mid-rib.

Methods: The fractions of leaf biomass in petiole, mid-rib and lamina, and the differences in chemistry and structure among mid-ribs, petioles and laminas were investigated in 122 species of contrasting leaf size, life form and climatic distribution to determine the extent to which differences in support modify whole-lamina and whole-leaf structural and chemical characteristics, and the extent to which size-dependent support investments are affected by plant life form and site climate.

Key Results: For the entire data set, leaf fresh mass varied over five orders of magnitude. The percentage of dry mass in mid-rib increased strongly with lamina size, reaching more than 40 % in the largest laminas. The whole-leaf percentage of mid-rib and petiole increased with leaf size, and the overall support investment was more than 60 % in the largest leaves. Fractional support investments were generally larger in herbaceous than in woody species and tended to be lower in Mediterranean than in cool temperate and tropical plants. Mid-ribs and petioles had lower N and C percentages, and lower dry to fresh mass ratio, but greater density (mass per unit volume) than laminas. N percentage of lamina without mid-rib was up to 40 % higher in the largest leaves than the total-lamina (lamina and mid-rib) N percentage, and up to 60 % higher than whole-leaf N percentage, while lamina density calculated without mid-rib was up to 80 % less than that with the mid-rib. For all leaf compartments, N percentage was negatively associated with density and dry to fresh mass ratio, while C percentage was positively linked to these characteristics, reflecting the overall inverse scaling between structural and physiological characteristics. However, the correlations between N and C percentages and structural characteristics differed among mid-ribs, petioles and laminas, implying that the mass-weighted average leaf N and C percentage, density, and dry to fresh mass ratio can have different functional values depending on the importance of within-leaf support investments.

Conclusions: These data demonstrate that variation in leaf size is associated with major changes in within-leaf support investments and in large modifications in integrated leaf chemical and structural characteristics. These size-dependent alterations can importantly affect general leaf structure vs. function scaling relationships. These data further demonstrate important life-form effects on and climatic differentiation in foliage support costs.

Key words: Carbon percentage, dry mass per unit area, leaf density, nitrogen percentage, leaf size, support costs


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
D. Yang, G. Li, and S. Sun
The Generality of Leaf Size versus Number Trade-off in Temperate Woody Species
Ann. Bot., October 1, 2008; 102(4): 623 - 629.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PaleobiologyHome page
D. L. Royer, L. Sack, P. Wilf, C. H. Lusk, G. J. Jordan, U. Niinemets, I. J. Wright, M. Westoby, B. Cariglino, P. D. Coley, et al.
Fossil leaf economics quantified: calibration, Eocene case study, and implications
Paleobiology, December 1, 2007; 33(4): 574 - 589.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.