Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 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 (33)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niklas, K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Niklas, K. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Niklas, K. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Botany 72: 165-172, 1993
© 1993 Annals of Botany Company

The Scaling of Plant Height: A Comparison Among Major Plant Clades and Anatomical Grades

Karl J. Niklas

Section of Plant Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

The scaling plant height h (m) with respect to stem diameter d (m) was determined for a total 610 species (mosses, n = 40; pteridophytes, n = 16; dicotyledonous herbs, n = 117; palms, n = 17; gymnosperms, n = 105; dicotyledonous trees, n = 315); axial length or mass vs. d was determined for the pteridophyte Psilotum nudum ; and the scaling of critical buckling height hcrit of gymnosperm and dicotyledonous trees was calculated based on the record trunk d and average Young's modulus E and density p of 33 wood species. The scaling exponents (based on least squares and reduced major axis regressions; {alpha}LS and {alpha}RMA, respectively) of these relations were compared to expected values for three scaling models: elastic similarity, {alpha} = 0·666; stress similarity, {alpha} = 0·500; and geometric similarity, {alpha} = 1·00. Least squares regression of the data from all species yielded h = 22 d0·91 (r2 = 0·955, n = 610; {alpha}RMA = 0·93). The scaling exponent of this formula complied best with the geometric similarity model ({alpha} {approx} 1·00). However, {alpha} differed among plant clades and anatomical grades: mosses, {alpha}LS = 1·10 (r2 = 0·974; {alpha}RMA = 1·12); pteridophytes, {alpha}LS = 1·69 (r2 = 0·847; {alpha}RMA = 1·83; herbaceous dicotyledons, {alpha}LS = 1·26 (r2 = 0·742; {alpha}RMA = 1·46); palms, {alpha}LS = 1·76 (r2 = 0·940; {alpha}RMA = 1·82); gymnosperm trees, {alpha}LS = 0·430 (r2 = 0·247; {alpha}RMA = 0·87); dicotyledonous trees, {alpha}LS = 0·488 (r2 = 0·515; {alpha}RMA = 0·69); woody species (gymnosperm and dicotyledonous trees, {alpha}LS = 0·538 (r2 = 0·541; {alpha}RMA = 0·73); and non-woody species, {alpha}LS = 1·29 (r2 = 0·949; {alpha}RMA = 1·32). Based on {alpha}RMA, the interspecific scaling of woody species complied neither with the stress or elastic similarity model. Regression of hcrit yielded the formula hcrit = 97·7 d0·689 (r2 = 0·969; {alpha}RMA = 0·70), which was interpreted to support the assumption that E/p {approx} a constant among gymnosperm and dicotyledonous woods. Intra- and interspecific variations in {alpha}RMA caution against using any of the three scaling models to predict h based on d across a broad taxonomic spectrum of species, although, on the average, {alpha}RMA < 1·0 and {alpha}RMA > 1·0 for woody and non-woody species, respectively.Copyright 1993, 1999 Academic Press

Plant allometry, biomechanics, trees


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
M. Brea and A. F. Zucol
Guadua zuloagae sp. nov., the First Petrified Bamboo Culm Record from the Ituzaingo Formation (Pliocene), Parana Basin, Argentina
Ann. Bot., October 1, 2007; 100(4): 711 - 723.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
M. S. WATT, J. R. MOORE, J.-P. FACON, G. M. DOWNES, P. W. CLINTON, G. COKER, M. R. DAVIS, R. SIMCOCK, R. L. PARFITT, J. DANDO, et al.
Modelling Environmental Variation in Young's Modulus for Pinus radiata and Implications for Determination of Critical Buckling Height
Ann. Bot., October 1, 2006; 98(4): 765 - 775.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Bot.Home page
Z. Hejnowicz and W. Barthlott
Structural and mechanical peculiarities of the petioles of giant leaves of Amorphophallus (Araceae)
Am. J. Botany, March 1, 2005; 92(3): 391 - 403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
D. J. Beerling and R. A. Berner
Feedbacks and the coevolution of plants and atmospheric CO2
PNAS, February 1, 2005; 102(5): 1302 - 1305.
[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.