Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size

Summary 1The leaf size–twig size spectrum is an important spectrum of variation between species, although the costs and benefits of larger vs smaller leaf size are poorly understood. This study quantified the dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size, across 70 species from four sites contrasted on the basis of rainfall and soil nutrients in east-temperate Australia. 2Leaf mass fraction beyond 10 mm2 of conductive cross-section (LMF10) varied threefold and was strongly positively correlated with leaf size, both across all species and within each habitat. This and other key correlations were significant both across species and as evolutionary divergences. 3An LMF10 advantage for larger-leaved species should translate into a proportional advantage in dry mass acquisition, yet species with small leaves persist and sustain populations. This raises the question as to what factors might counterbalance an LMF advantage associated with larger leaf size. 4Within some sites, specific leaf area (SLA) decreased with leaf size, which counterbalanced the LMF10 advantage. Within other sites, and across all sites, SLA did not decline with leaf size. In these comparisons other factors, such as avoidance of overheating, must counterbalance the LMF10 advantage to larger-leaved species. 5Wood density was negatively correlated with leaf size. However, the relationship was weaker within sites in the lower rainfall zone, and species in these sites had generally higher wood density. Sapwood cross-sectional area per unit leaf area (Huber value) varied approximately ninefold across all species, and was correlated with both leaf size and SLA across all species, but not within sites.

[1]  M. Westoby Generalization in Functional Plant Ecology: The Species- Sampling Problem, Plant Ecology Strategy Schemes, and Phylogeny , 2007 .

[2]  Ü. Niinemets Plant growth-form alters the relationship between foliar morphology and species shade-tolerance ranking in temperate woody taxa , 1996, Vegetatio.

[3]  Ü. Niinemets Are compound-leaved woody species inherently shade-intolerant? An analysis of species ecological requirements and foliar support costs , 2004, Plant Ecology.

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

[5]  Jeannine M Cavender-Bares,et al.  Hydraulic properties and freezing‐induced cavitation in sympatric evergreen and deciduous oaks with contrasting habitats , 2001 .

[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]  Ülo Niinemets,et al.  GLOBAL-SCALE CLIMATIC CONTROLS OF LEAF DRY MASS PER AREA, DENSITY, AND THICKNESS IN TREES AND SHRUBS , 2001 .

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

[9]  M. Westoby,et al.  Do small leaves expand faster than large leaves, and do shorter expansion times reduce herbivore damage? , 2000 .

[10]  J. Sperry,et al.  Vulnerability to xylem cavitation and the distribution of Sonoran Desert vegetation. , 1996, American journal of botany.

[11]  J. Sperry,et al.  Drought experience and cavitation resistance in six shrubs from the Great Basin, Utah , 2000 .

[12]  Mark Westoby,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY DIVERGENCES IN LEAF STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, COMPARING RAINFALL AND SOIL NUTRIENT GRADIENTS , 1999 .

[13]  James H. Brown,et al.  Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants , 1999, Nature.

[14]  K. Thompson,et al.  Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies , 1999 .

[15]  Mark G. Tjoelker,et al.  Close association of RGR, leaf and root morphology, seed mass and shade tolerance in seedlings of nine boreal tree species grown in high and low light , 1998 .

[16]  Andrew W. Douglas,et al.  Phylogeny of the Proteaceae Based on atpB and atpB-rbcL Intergenic Spacer Region Sequences , 1998 .

[17]  P. Grubb A reassessment of the strategies of plants which cope with shortages of resources , 1998 .

[18]  Elizabeth A. Kellogg,et al.  An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants , 1998 .

[19]  Bill Shipley,et al.  Structured interspecific determinants of specific leaf area in 34 species of herbaceous angiosperms , 1995 .

[20]  Thomas J. Givnish,et al.  Plant Stems: Biomechanical Adaptation for Energy Capture and Influence on Species Distributions , 1995 .

[21]  Maurizio Mencuccini,et al.  Climate influences the leaf area/sapwood area ratio in Scots pine. , 1995, Tree physiology.

[22]  Kalevi Kull,et al.  Leaf weight per area and leaf size of 85 Estonian woody species in relation to shade tolerance and light availability , 1994 .

[23]  Karl J. Niklas,et al.  Plant Biomechanics: An Engineering Approach to Plant Form and Function , 1993 .

[24]  M. Pagel,et al.  The comparative method in evolutionary biology , 1991 .

[25]  C. Dickman Body Size, Prey Size, and Community Structure in Insectivorous Mammals , 1988 .

[26]  C. Loehle,et al.  Constraints on Tree Breeding: Growth Tradeoffs, Growth Strategies, and Defensive Investments , 1987, Forest Science.

[27]  A. George Flora of Australia , 1986 .

[28]  B. G. Briggs,et al.  Myrtales and Myrtaceae: a phylogenetic analysis , 1984 .

[29]  S. Carlquist Ecological strategies of xylem evolution , 1975 .

[30]  G. Evans,et al.  The quantitative analysis of plant growth , 1972 .

[31]  T. Kira,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PLANT FORM-THE PIPE MODEL THEORY : I.BASIC ANALYSES , 1964 .

[32]  E. Corner The Durian Theory or the Origin of the Modern Tree , 1949 .