Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: what consequences for light interception?

•  Architecture can vary widely across species. Both steeper leaf angles and increased self-shading are thought to reduce potential carbon gain by decreasing total light interception. An alternative hypothesis is that steeper leaf angles have evolved to improve day-long carbon gain by emphasising light interception from low angles. •  Here we relate variation in architectural properties (leaf angle and leaf size) to cross-species patterns of leaf display, light capture and simulated carbon gain in branching-units of 38 perennial species occurring at two sites in Australian forest. Architectural comparison was made possible by combining 3D-digitising with the architecture model YPLANT. •  Species with shallow angled leaves had greater daily light interception and potentially greater carbon gain. Self-shading, rather than leaf angle, explained most variance between species in light capture and potential carbon gain. Species average leaf size was the most important determinant of self-shading. •  Our results provide the first cross-species evidence that steeper leaf angles function to reduce exposure to excess light levels during the middle of the day, more than to maximise carbon gain.

[1]  Robert W. Pearcy,et al.  A three-dimensional crown architecture model for assessment of light capture and carbon gain by understory plants , 1996, Oecologia.

[2]  M. Westoby,et al.  C O M M U N I T Y E C O L O G Y , 2022 .

[3]  M. Westoby,et al.  ECOLOGICAL STRATEGIES : Some Leading Dimensions of Variation Between Species , 2002 .

[4]  Jason G. Bragg,et al.  Leaf size and foraging for light in a sclerophyll woodland , 2002 .

[5]  C. Werner,et al.  Characteristic patterns of chronic and dynamic photoinhibition of different functional groups in a Mediterranean ecosystem. , 2002, Functional plant biology : FPB.

[6]  P. Reich,et al.  Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high‐ and low‐rainfall and high‐ and low‐nutrient habitats , 2001 .

[7]  Hugh J. Barclay,et al.  Distribution of leaf orientations in six conifer species , 2001 .

[8]  D. Ellsworth,et al.  Crown carbon gain and elevated [CO2] responses of understorey saplings with differing allometry and architecture , 2001 .

[9]  R. Ryel,et al.  Structural and functional variability within the canopy and its relevance for carbon gain and stress avoidance , 2001 .

[10]  R. Ryel,et al.  Effects of photoinhibition on whole‐plant carbon gain assessed with a photosynthesis model , 2001 .

[11]  Jacob McC. Overton,et al.  Shifts in trait‐combinations along rainfall and phosphorus gradients , 2000 .

[12]  T. Okuda,et al.  The leaf development process and its significance for reducing self-shading of a tropical pioneer tree species , 2000, Oecologia.

[13]  H. Sinoquet,et al.  Assessing the Geometric Structure of a White Clover ( Trifolium repens L.) Canopy using3-D Digitising , 2000 .

[14]  F. Valladares,et al.  Energy dissipation in drought-avoiding and drought-tolerant tree species at midday during the Mediterranean summer. , 2000, Tree physiology.

[15]  F. Valladares,et al.  The geometry of light interception by shoots of Heteromeles arbutifolia: morphological and physiological consequences for individual leaves , 1999, Oecologia.

[16]  P. Stenberg,et al.  Shoot structure, canopy openness, and light interception in Norway spruce , 1999 .

[17]  Patrick Meir,et al.  Light distribution and foliage structure in an oak canopy , 1999, Trees.

[18]  Hajime Utsugi,et al.  Angle distribution of foliage in individual Chamaecyparis obtusa canopies and effect of angle on diffuse light penetration , 1999, Trees.

[19]  Fernando Valladares,et al.  Tradeoffs Between Irradiance Capture and Avoidance in Semi-arid Environments Assessed with a Crown Architecture Model , 1999 .

[20]  Francisco de Castro,et al.  The effect of leaf clustering in the interception of light in vegetal canopies: theoretical considerations , 1999 .

[21]  C. Werner,et al.  Two different strategies of Mediterranean macchia plants to avoid photoinhibitory damage by excessive radiation levels during summer drought , 1999 .

[22]  Robert W. Pearcy,et al.  The functional morphology of light capture and carbon gain in the Redwood forest understorey plant Adenocaulon bicolor Hook , 1998 .

[23]  Ü. Niinemets.  Adjustment of foliage structure and function to a canopy light gradient in two co-existing deciduous trees. Variability in leaf inclination angles in relation to petiole morphology , 1998, Trees.

[24]  Robert W. Pearcy,et al.  The functional ecology of shoot architecture in sun and shade plants of Heteromeles arbutifolia M. Roem., a Californian chaparral shrub , 1998, Oecologia.

[25]  W. Smith,et al.  Associations between leaf structure, orientation, and sunlight exposure in five Western Australian communities. , 1998, American journal of botany.

[26]  Hendrik Poorter,et al.  Inherent variation in plant growth : physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences , 1998 .

[27]  David T. Bell,et al.  Leaf Form and Photosynthesis , 1997 .

[28]  H. Sinoquet,et al.  Measurement and visualization of the architecture of an adult tree based on a three-dimensional digitising device , 1997, Trees.

[29]  D. A. King,et al.  The Functional Significance of Leaf Angle in Eucalyptus , 1997 .

[30]  M. Michalewicz.  Plants to ecosystems: advances in computational life sciences , 1997 .

[31]  Tadaki Hirose,et al.  Leaf angle as a strategy for light competition: Optimal and evolutionarily stable light-extinction coefficient within a leaf canopy , 1997 .

[32]  T. Sekimura.  THE DIVERSITY IN SHOOT MORPHOLOGY OF HERBACEOUS PLANTS IN RELATION TO SOLAR RADIATION CAPTURED BY LEAVES , 1995 .

[33]  R. Ryel,et al.  Foliage Orientation and Carbon Gain in Two Tussock Grasses as Assessed with a New Whole-plant Gas Exchange Model , 1993 .

[34]  Exequiel Ezcurra,et al.  Architecture, Light Interception, and Distribution of Larrea Species in the Monte Desert, Argentina , 1991 .

[35]  G. Campbell.  Derivation of an angle density function for canopies with ellipsoidal leaf angle distributions , 1990 .

[36]  John M. Norman,et al.  Instrumentation for studying vegetation canopies for remote sensing in optical and thermal infrared regions , 1990 .

[37]  P. Rich.  Characterizing plant canopies with hemispherical photographs. , 1990 .

[38]  G. Russell,et al.  Plant Canopies: Their Growth, Form and Function: Absorption of radiation by canopies and stand growth , 1989 .

[39]  Robert W. Pearcy,et al.  Plant Physiological Ecology , 1989, Springer Netherlands.

[40]  Thomas J. Givnish,et al.  Adaptation to Sun and Shade: a Whole-Plant Perspective , 1988 .

[41]  J. Ehleringer,et al.  CHANGES IN LEAF CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIES ALONG ELEVATIONAL GRADIENTS IN THE WASATCH FRONT, UTAH. , 1988, American journal of botany.

[42]  Karl J Niklas,et al.  THE ROLE OF PHYLLOTACTIC PATTERN AS A “DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRAINT” ON THE INTERCEPTION OF LIGHT BY LEAF SURFACES , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  J. Ehleringer,et al.  EFFECT OF NONRANDOM LEAF ORIENTATION ON REPRODUCTION IN LACTUCA SERRIOLA L. , 1986, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[44]  G. Campbell.  Extinction coefficients for radiation in plant canopies calculated using an ellipsoidal inclination angle distribution , 1986 .

[45]  Dennis D. Baldocchi,et al.  Canopy radiative transfer models for spherical and known leaf inclination angle distributions: a test in an oak-hickory forest , 1985 .

[46]  M. Westoby,et al.  Species richness in vascular vegetation of the West Head, New South Wales , 1983 .

[47]  R. Sokal,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research (2nd ed.). , 1982 .

[48]  I. R. Cowan.  Regulation of Water Use in Relation to Carbon Gain in Higher Plants , 1982 .

[49]  G. G. M. Millen,et al.  Leaf Angle: An Adaptive Feature of Sun and Shade Leaves , 1979, Botanical Gazette.

[50]  H. Honda,et al.  Tree Branch Angle: Maximizing Effective Leaf Area , 1978, Science.

[51]  Thomas J. Givnish,et al.  Sizes and Shapes of Liane Leaves , 1976, The American Naturalist.

[52]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[53]  BY D. F. PARKHURSTt.  OPTIMAL LEAF SIZE IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT * , 2022 .