Differences between Acer saccharum leaves from open and wind- protected sites

Annals of Botany

Volumn 78, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 61-66

  Niklas, Karl J ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Acer saccharum; allometry; biomechanics; Leaves; wind drag

Indexed keywords

ACER; ACER SACCHARUM; SACCHARUM; SACCHARUM HYBRID CULTIVAR;

EID: 0029782484     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbo.1996.0096     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderson YG. 1955. Seasonal development in sun and shade leaves. Ecology 36: 430-439.
2. Chazdon RL. 1991. Plant size and form in the understory palm genus Genoma; are species variations on a theme? American Journal of Botany 78: 680-694.
3. Givnish TJ. 1982. On the adaptive significance of leaf height in forest herbs. American Naturalist 120: 353-381.
4. Givnish TJ. 1988. Adaptation to sun vs. shade: A whole-plant perspective. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 15: 63-92.
5. Grace J. 1978. The turbulent boundary layer over a napping Populus leaf. Plant, Cell, and Environment 1: 35-38.
6. Grace J, Russell G. 1977. The effect of wind on grasses. III. Influence of continuous drought or wind on anatomy and water relations in Festuca arundinacea. Journal of Experimental Botany 28: 268-278.
7. Grant RH. 1983. The scaling of flow in vegetative structures. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 27: 171-184.
8. Haerdtl H. 1927. Die Wirkung mechanischer Inanspruchnahme auf Bau und Biegungsfestigkeit der Blattstiele. Botanische Archiv 18 : 61-92.
9. Jaffe MJ, Telewski FW, Cooke PW. 1984. Thigmomorphogenesis : on the mechanical properties of mechanically perturbed bean plants. Physiologia Plantarum 62: 73-78.
10. Kellogg RM, Steucek GL. 1980. Mechanical stimulation and xylem production in Douglas-fir. Forest Science 4: 643-651.
11. Knight TA. 1811. On the causes which influence the direction of the growth of roots. Transactions of the Philosophical Society of London 1811: 209-219.
12. Kraus G. 1869. Über die Ursachen der Formänderungen etiolirender Pflanzen. Jahrbücher für Wissenschaftliche Botanisk 7: 209-260.
13. Mayhead GJ. 1973. Some drag coefficients for British forest trees derived from wind tunnel studies. Agricultural Meteorology 12: 123-130.
14. Niklas KJ. 1991. The elastic moduli and mechanics of Populus tremuloides (Salicaceae) petioles in bending and torsion. American Journal of Botany 78: 989-996.
15. Niklas KJ. 1992. Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. Chicago III : University of Chicago Press.
16. Niklas KJ. 1994a. Plant allometry : the scaling of plant form and process. Chicago III : University of Chicago Press.
17. Niklas KJ. 1994b. Comparisons among biomass allocation and spatial distribution patterns for some vine, pteridophyte, and gymnosperm shoots. American Journal of Botany 81: 1416-1421.
18. Penfound WT. 1931. Plant anatomy as conditioned by light intensity and soil moisture. American Journal of Botany 18: 558-572.
19. Popp HW. 1926. Effect of light intensity on growth of soy beans and its relation to the auto-cataiyst theory of growth. Botanical Gazette 82: 306-319.
20. Shirley HL. 1929. The influence of light intensity and light quality upon the growth of plant. American Journal of Botany 16: 354-390.
21. Smirov E, Zhelochovtsev AN. 1931. Das Gesetz der Attersveränderungen der Blattform bei Tropaeolum majus L. unter verschiedenen Beleuchtungsbedingungen. Planta 15: 299-354.
22. Turgeon R, Webb JA. 1971. Growth inhibition by mechanical stress. Science 174: 961-962.
23. Venning FD. 1949. Stimulation by wind motion of collenchyma formation in celery petioles. Botanische Archiv 110: 511-514.
24. Vogel S. 1989. Drag and reconfiguration of broad leaves in high winds. Journal of Experimental Botany 40: 941-948.
25. Wainwright SA, Biggs WD, Currey JD, Gosline JM. 1976. Mechanical design in organisms. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.