Evolutionary comparative analyses of the relationship between leaf structure and function

New Phytologist

Volumn 134, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 35-51

  Beerling, D J ^a   Kelly, C K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Evolutionary comparative method; Leaf thickness; Stomatal conductance; Stomatal density

Indexed keywords

LEAF STRUCTURE; STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE;

EUROPE, (CENTRAL);

EID: 0030469597     PISSN: 0028646X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb01144.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bongers F, Popma J. 1990. Leaf characteristics of the tropical rain forest flora of Los Tuxtlas, México. Botanical Gazette 151: 354-365.
2. Cronquist A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. New York: Columbia University Press.
3. Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125: 1-15.
4. Friend AD, Woodward FI. 1990. Evolutionary and ecophysiological responses of mountain plants to the growing season environment. Advances in Ecological Research 20: 59-124.
5. Garland T, Harvey, PH, Ives AR. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using independent contrasts. Systematic Biology 41: 18-32.
6. Gittleman JL, Luh H.-K. 1992. On comparing comparative methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 383-404.
7. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
8. Harvey PH, Read AF, Nee S. 1995. Why ecologiste need to be phylogenetically challenged. Journal of Ecology 83: 535-536.
9. Kelly CK, Beerling DJ. 1995. Life form, stomatal density and taxonomic relatedness: a reanalysis of Salisbury (1927). Functional Ecology 9: 422-431.
10. Kelly CK, Purvis A. 1993. Seed size and establishment conditions in tropical trees: on the use of taxonomic relatedness in determining ecological patterns. Oecologia 94: 356-360.
11. 13C. Journal of Ecology 83: 509-517.
12. Körner Ch, Allison A, Hilscher H. 1983. Altitudinal variation in leaf diffusive conductance and leaf anatomy in heliophytes of montane New Guinea and their interrelations with microclimate. Flora 174: 91-135.
13. Körner Ch, Neumayer M, Menendez-Riedl, Smeets- Scheel A. 1989. Functional morphology of mountain plants. Flora 182: 353-383.
14. Körner Ch, Scheel AJ, Bauer H. 1979. Maximum leaf diffusive conductance in vascular plants. Photosynthetica 13: 45-82.
15. Mott KA, Gibson AC, O'Leary JW. 1982. The adaptive significance of amphistomatic leaves. Plant, Cell and Environment 5: 455-460.
16. Mott KA, Michaelson O. 1991. Amphistomy as an adaptation to high light intensity in Ambrosia cirdifolia (Compositae). American Journal of Botany 78: 76-79.
17. Pagel MD. 1992. A method for the analysis of comparative data. Journal of Theoretical Biology 15: 431-442.
18. 2 uptake by continuously distributed mesophyll in leaves. Journal of Theoretical Biology 67: 471-488.
19. Parkhurst DF. 1978. The adaptive significance of stomatal occurrence on one or both leaf surfaces. Journal of Ecology 66: 367-383.
20. 2 and other gases into leaves, New Phytologist 126: 449-479.
21. Peat HJ, Fitter AH. 1994. Comparative analyses of ecological characterstics of British angiosperms. Biological Reviews 69: 95-115.
22. Ridley M. 1983. The explanation of organic diversity : the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
23. Salisbury EJ. 1927. On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal frequency, with special reference to the woodland flora. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B216: 1-65.
24. Siegal S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. 13C in Hawaiian Metrosideros polymorpha : a case of internal resistance? Oecologia 84, 362-370.
26. Woodward FI. 1986. Ecophysiological studies on the shrub Vaccinium myrtillus L. taken from a wide altitudinal range. Oecologia 70: 580-586.
27. 2 concentration on stomatal density. New Phytologist 131: 311-327.