AOBPreview originally published online on March 12, 2007
Annals of Botany 2007 99(5):955-958; doi:10.1093/aob/mcm022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Two Measurement Methods of Leaf Dry Matter Content Produce Similar Results in a Broad Range of Species
1 Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (CONICET-UNC) and FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Casilla de Correo 495, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina
2 CNRS, Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (U.M.R. 5175), 1919, Route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
3 Département de Biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke (QC), Canada J1K 2R1
* For correspondence. E-mail sdiaz{at}com.uncor.edu
Received: 28 July 2006 Returned for revision: 10 October 2006 Accepted: 9 January 2007 Published electronically: 12 March 2007
Background and Aims: Leaf dry matter content (LDMC) is widely used as an indicator of plant resource use in plant functional trait databases. Two main methods have been proposed to measure LDMC, which basically differ in the rehydration procedure to which leaves are subjected after harvesting. These are the ‘complete rehydration’ protocol of Garnier et al. (2001, Functional Ecology 15: 688–695) and the ‘partial rehydration’ protocol of Vendramini et al. (2002, New Phytologist 154: 147–157).
Methods: To test differences in LDMC due to the use of different methods, LDMC was measured on 51 native and cultivated species representing a wide range of plant families and growth forms from central-western Argentina, following the complete rehydration and partial rehydration protocols.
Key Results and Conclusions: The LDMC values obtained by both methods were strongly and positively correlated, clearly showing that LDMC is highly conserved between the two procedures. These trends were not altered by the exclusion of plants with non-laminar leaves. Although the complete rehydration method is the safest to measure LDMC, the partial rehydration procedure produces similar results and is faster. It therefore appears as an acceptable option for those situations in which the complete rehydration method cannot be applied. Two notes of caution are given for cases in which different datasets are compared or combined: (1) the discrepancy between the two rehydration protocols is greatest in the case of high-LDMC (succulent or tender) leaves; (2) the results suggest that, when comparing many studies across unrelated datasets, differences in the measurement protocol may be less important than differences among seasons, years and the quality of local habitats.
Key words: Argentina, leaf dry matter content, leaf rehydration, plant comparative ecology, plant functional traits