Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Content Snapshot
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 (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RODERICK, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by COCHRANE, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by RODERICK, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by COCHRANE, M. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by RODERICK, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by COCHRANE, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Botany 89: 537-542, 2002
© 2002 Annals of Botany Company

On the Conservative Nature of the Leaf Mass–Area Relationship

MICHAEL L. RODERICK*,1,2 and MICHELLE J. COCHRANE2

1CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Research School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia and 2Ecosystem Dynamics Group, Research School of Biological Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia

*For correspondence. Fax (61) 2 61255095, e-mail Michael.Roderick{at}anu.edu.au

Received: 25 October 2001; Returned for revision: 8 January 2002; Accepted: 31 January 2002.

In a previous empirical study, Hughes and colleagues showed that for several herbaceous species there is apparently a unique species-specific relationship between the area and mass of leaves. We tested this proposition using measurements from 15 broad-leaved species. We found that to a reasonable approximation, leaf area was proportional to leaf mass within a given species despite relatively large variations in both leaf thickness and the mass fraction of liquid matter. These observations show that the inverse density–thickness of leaves from a given species, which we call the Hughes constant, is approximately conserved. We conclude that the Hughes constant is likely to be more conservative than other traits traditionally used to describe leaves.

Key words: Allometric relationships, Hughes constant, leaf area, leaf mass, plant growth, plant–water relations.


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. VILE, E. GARNIER, B. SHIPLEY, G. LAURENT, M.-L. NAVAS, C. ROUMET, S. LAVOREL, S. DIAZ, J. G. HODGSON, F. LLORET, et al.
Specific Leaf Area and Dry Matter Content Estimate Thickness in Laminar Leaves
Ann. Bot., November 1, 2005; 96(6): 1129 - 1136.
[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.