Characterizing sclerophylly: the mechanical properties of a diverse range of leaf types.

•  Although sclerophylly is defined by textural properties, its adaptive significance has been debated without a strong base of mechanical data. We measured a wide range of mechanical properties across a diverse range of species and leaf forms, including highly scleromorphic leaves, and compared these with sclerophylly indices to determine the mechanical properties of sclerophylls. •  Fracture and flexure tests were used to determine leaf strength, toughness (work to fracture) and flexural stiffness ('structural' properties), and specific strength, specific toughness and Young's modulus of elasticity ('material' properties, i.e. normalized per unit leaf thickness). •  Leaves varied considerably in all properties tested, and in the way they combined various 'structural' and 'material' properties. However, on average, highly scleromorphic leaves were stronger, tougher and stiffer than soft leaves. 'Structural' properties correlated more strongly with sclerophylly than 'material' properties, and the ratio of stiffness to strength and toughness increased in sclerophyllous species. •  Of the structural properties, strength, toughness and flexural stiffness each made substantial independent contributions to the variation in sclerophylly indices, but the best individual explanators were flexural stiffness and strength, with the best predictive model being a combination of these two properties. This model should now be tested on leaves from contrasting environments.

[1]  P. Lucas,et al.  The Fracture Toughness of the Leaf of the Dicotyledon Calophyllum inophyllum L. (Guttiferae) , 1991 .

[2]  Ian J. Wright,et al.  Relationships between leaf lifespan and structural defences in a low-nutrient, sclerophyll flora , 2001 .

[3]  H. Grimshaw.  The determination of total phosphorus in soils by acid digestion , 1987 .

[4]  M. Berenbaum.  Insects and the plant surface , 1988 .

[5]  R. M. Nally.  Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: The distinction between – and reconciliation of – ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models , 2000, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[6]  P. Rundel,et al.  Sclerophylly and Foliar Nutrient Status of Mediterranean-Climate Plant Communities in Southern Australia , 1990 .

[7]  Julian F. V. Vincent,et al.  Biomechanics--materials : a practical approach , 1992 .

[8]  A. Loveless.  A Nutritional Interpretation of Sclerophylly Based on Differences in the Chemical Composition of Sclerophyllous and Mesophytic Leaves , 1961 .

[9]  David J. Hicks,et al.  The Ecology of Leaf Life Spans , 1982 .

[10]  E. Bernays,et al.  Head size and shape in relation to grass feeding in Acridoidea (Orthoptera) , 1987 .

[11]  Karl J. Niklas,et al.  A mechanical perspective on foliage leaf form and function , 1999 .

[12]  A. Loveless.  Further Evidence to Support a Nutritional Interpretation of Sclerophylly , 1962 .

[13]  A. Atkins.  Imparting strength and toughness to brittle composites , 1974, Nature.

[14]  M. Westoby,et al.  Leaves at low versus high rainfall: coordination of structure, lifespan and physiology. , 2002, The New phytologist.

[15]  M. Press,et al.  The functional significance of leaf structure: a search for generalizations. , 1999 .

[16]  E. Cuevas,et al.  Sclerophylly and oligotrophic environments : relationships between leaf structure, mineral nutrient content, and drought resistance in tropical rain forests of the upper Rio Negro region , 1990 .

[17]  J. Read,et al.  Characterising sclerophylly: some mechanical properties of leaves from heath and forest , 2000, Oecologia.

[18]  Erich Barke,et al.  Hierarchical partitioning , 1996, Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Aided Design.

[19]  N. Aranwela,et al.  Relationships between sclerophylly, leaf biomechanical properties and leaf anatomy in some Australian heath and forest species , 2000 .

[20]  A. Schimper,et al.  Plant-geography upon a physiological basis , 2022 .

[21]  J. Vincent.  Fracture Properties of Plants , 1990 .

[22]  P. Reich,et al.  Leaf lifespan as a determinant of leaf structure and function among 23 amazonian tree species , 1991, Oecologia.

[23]  N. Aranwela,et al.  Methods of assessing leaf‐fracture properties , 1999 .

[24]  S. Lips,et al.  The strength of sclerophyllous cells to resist collapse due to negative turgor pressure. , 1990 .

[25]  P. Groom,et al.  Which common indices of sclerophylly best reflect differences in leaf structure , 1999 .

[26]  P. Coley,et al.  HERBIVORY AND DEFENSIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TREE SPECIES IN A LOWLAND TROPICAL FOREST , 1983 .

[27]  Byron B. Lamont,et al.  Leaf specific mass confounds leaf density and thickness , 1991, Oecologia.

[28]  A. Atkins.  Elastic and plastic fracture , 1985 .

[29]  Stephen A. Wainwright,et al.  Mechanical Design in Organisms , 2020 .

[30]  V. Gutschick.  Biotic and abiotic consequences of differences in leaf structure , 1999 .

[31]  N. Aranwela,et al.  Measurement of leaf biomechanical properties in studies of herbivory : Opportunities, problems and procedures , 2001 .

[32]  I. Turner.  A quantitative analysis of leaf form in woody plants from the world's major broadleaved forest types , 1994 .

[33]  M. F. Choong.  What makes a leaf tough and how this affects the pattern of Castanopsis fissa leaf consumption by caterpillars , 1996 .

[34]  P. V. Soest.  Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant , 1994 .

[35]  G. Quinn,et al.  Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists , 2002 .

[36]  I. Turner.  Sclerophylly: primarily protective? , 1994 .

[37]  Allan Stewart-Oaten,et al.  Rules and judgments in statistics : three examples , 1995 .

[38]  N. Beadle.  Soil Phosphate and Its Role in Molding Segments of the Australian Flora and Vegetation, with Special Reference to Xeromorphy and Sclerophylly , 1966 .

[39]  HighWire Press.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[40]  N. Dominy,et al.  Mechanical Defences to Herbivory , 2000 .

[41]  P. Lucas,et al.  Leaf fracture toughness and sclerophylly: their correlations and ecological implications , 1992 .

[42]  P. Peeters.  Correlations between leaf structural traits and the densities of herbivorous insect guilds , 2002 .

[43]  M. Sobrado,et al.  General morphology, anatomical structure, and nutrient content of sclerophyllous leaves of the ‘bana’ vegetation of amazonas , 2004, Oecologia.

[44]  P. Lucas,et al.  How Tough are Sclerophylls , 1993 .

[45]  A. Nardini,et al.  Sclerophylly: Evolutionary advantage or mere epiphenomenon? , 2000 .