Ontogenetic changes in the numbers of short-vs. long-shoots account for decreasing specific leaf area in acer rubrum (Aceraceae) as trees increase in size

American Journal of Botany

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 27-37

  Niklas, Karl J ^a   Cobb, Edward D ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Aceraceae; Acerrubrum; Allometry; Diminishing returns; Functional foliar traits; Leaf area; Leaf economics;

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; CORRELATION; DICOTYLEDON; GROWTH RATE; LEAF AREA; ONTOGENY; PLANT ARCHITECTURE;

ACER; ACER RUBRUM; DICOTYLEDONEAE; SAPINDACEAE;

EID: 73249134404     PISSN: 00029122     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0900249     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Anten, N. P. R., and T. Hirose. 1999. Interspecific differences in above ground growth patterns result in spatial and temporal partitioning of light among species in a tall-grass meadow. Journal of Ecology 87: 583 - 597.
2. Ashton, P. M. S., H. S. Yoon, R. Thadani, and G. P. Berlyn. 1999. Seedling leaf structure of New England maples (Acer) in relation to light environment. Forest Science 45: 512-519.
3. Baldocchi, D. D., K. B. Wilson, and L. H. Gu. 2002. How the environment, canopy structure and canopy physiological functioning influence carbon, water and energy fluxes of a temperate broad-leafed deciduous forest - An assessment with the biophysical model CANOAK. Tree Physiology 22: 1065-1077.
4. Barthélémy, D., and Y. Caraglio.2007. Plantarchitecture:Adynamic, multilevel and comprehensive approach to plant form, structure and ontogeny. Annals of Botany 99: 375-407.
5. Bell, A. 1991. Plant form: An illustrated guide to flowering plant morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
6. Coombe, D. E. 1960. An analysis of the growth of Treema guineensis. Journal of Ecology 48: 219-231.
7. Critchfield, W. B. 1960. Leaf dimorphism in Populus trichocarpa. American Journal of Botany 47: 699-711.
8. Critchfield, W. B.1971. ShootgrowthandheterophyllyinAcer. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 52: 240-266.
9. Evans, J. R., and H. Poorter.2001. Photosyntheticacclimationofplants to growth irradiance: The relative importance of specific leaf area and nitrogen partitioning in maximising carbon gain. Plant, Cell & Environment 24: 755-768.
10. Gregory, R. A. 1980. Annual cycle of shoot development in sugar maple. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 10: 316-326.
11. Gutschick, V. P. 1988. Optimization of specific leaf mass, internal CO2 concentration, and chlorophyll content in crop canopies. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 29: 525-537.
12. Gutschick, V. P., and F. W. Wiegel. 1988. Optimizing the canopy photosynthetic rate by patterns of investment in specific leaf mass. American Naturalist 132: 67-86.
13. Grime, J. P. 2001. Plant strategies, vegetation processes and ecosystem properties, 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
14. Hallé, F., R. A. A. Oldeman, and P. B. Tomlinson. 1978. Tropical trees and forests: An architectural analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
15. Hanson, H. 1917. Leaf-structure as related to environment. American Journal of Botany 4: 533-560.
16. Harley, P. C., and D. D. Baldocchi. 1995. Scaling carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange from leaf to canopy in a deciduous forest. 1. Leaf model parameterization. Plant, Cell & Environment 18: 1146-1156
17. Ishii, H. T., G. M. Jennings, S. C. Sillett, and G. W. Koch. 2008. Hydrostatic constraints on morphological exploitation of light in tall Sequoia sempervirens trees. Oecologia 156: 751-763.
18. Jones, B., and P. Goos. 2007. A candidate-set-free algorithm for generating D-optimal split-plot designs. Applied Statistics 56: 347-364.
19. Jurik, T. W. 1986. Temporal and spatial patterns of specific leaf weight in successional northern hardwood tree species. American Journal of Botany 73: 1083-1092.
20. Koch, G. W., S. C. Sillett, G. M. Jennings, and S. D. Davis. 2004. The limits to tree height. Nature 428: 851-854.
21. Koyama, K., and K. Kikuzawa. 2009. Is whole-plant photosynthetic rate proportional to leaf area? A test of scalings and a logistic equation by leaf demography census. American Naturalist 173: 640-649.
22. Lambers, H., and H. Poorter.1992. Inherentvariationingrowthratebetween higher plants: A search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Advances in Ecological Research 23: 187-261.
23. Li, G. Y., D. Yang, and S. Sun. 2008. Allometric relationships between lamina area, lamina mass and petiole mass of 93 temperate woody species vary with leaf habit, leaf form and altitude. Functional Ecology 22: 557-564.
24. Maximov, N. A. 1929. The plant in relation to water: A study of the physiological basis of drought resistance. Allen & Unwin, London, UK.
25. Mullin, L. P., S. C. Sillett, G. W. Koch, K. Tu, and M. E. Antoine. 2009. Physiological consequences of height-related morphological variation in Sequoia sempervirens foliage. Tree Physiology 29: 999-1010.
26. Niinemets, Ü. 1999. Components of leaf dry mass per area-thickness and density - alter leaf photosynthetic capacity in reverse directions in woody plants. New Phytologist 144: 35-47
27. Niinemets, Ü. 2007. Photosynthesis and resource distribution through plant canopies. Plant, Cell & Environment 30: 1052-1071.
28. Niinemets, Ü., A. Portsmuth, and M. Tobias. 2006. Leaf size modifies support biomass distribution among stems, petioles and mid-ribs in temperate plants. New Phytologist 171: 91-104.
29. Niklas, K. J. 1992. Petiole mechanics, light interception by lamina, and economy in design. Oecologia 90: 518-526.
30. Niklas, K. J. 1996. Differences in Acer saccharum leaves from open and wind-protected sites. Annals of Botany 78: 61-66.
31. Niklas, K. J. 1999. A mechanical perspective on foliage leaf form and function. New Phytologist 143: 19-31.
32. Niklas, K. J., and E. D. Cobb. 2008. Evidence for "diminishing returns" from the scaling of stem diameter and specific leaf area. American Journal of Botany 95: 549-557.
33. Niklas, K. J., E. D. Cobb, and H.-C. Spatz. 2009. Predicting the allometry of leaf surface area and dry mass. American Journal of Botany 96: 531-536.
34. Niklas, K. J., E. D. Cobb, Ü. Niinemets, P. B. Reich, and A. Sellin, B. Shipley, and I. J. Wright. 2007. "Diminishingreturns"inthescaling of functional leaf traits across and within species groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 104: 8891-8896.
35. Nordhausen, W. 1903. Über Sonnenund Schattenblätter. Deutsche Botanische Gesellshaft, Berlin 21: 30-45.
36. Peterson, A. G., and C. Participants. 1999. Reconciling the apparent difference between mass-and area-based expressions of the photosynthesis-nitrogen relationship. Oecologia 118: 144-150.
37. Poorter, H., and M. Bergkotte.1992. Chemicalcompositionof24wild species differing in relative growth-rate. Plant, Cell & Environment 15: 221-229.
38. Poorter, H., Ü. Niinemets, L. Poorter, I. J. Wright, and R. Villar. 2009. Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis. The New Phytologist 182: 565-588.
39. Poorter, H., and A. van der Werf. 1998. Is inherent variation in RGR determined by LAR at low irradiance and by NAR at high irradiance? A review of herbaceous species. In H. Lambers, H. Poorter, and M. M. I. Van Vuuren [eds.], Inherent variation in plant growth: Physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences, 309-336. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands.
40. Shipley, B. 1995. Structured interspecific determinants of specific leafarea in 34 species of herbaceous angiosperms. Functional Ecology 9: 312-319.
41. Stahl, E. 1883. Einfluss des sonnigen oder schattigen Standortes auf die Ausbildung der Laubbl ä tter. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 16: 162-200
42. Suzuki, A. 2000. Patterns of vegetative growth and reproduction in relation to branch orders: The plant as a spatially structured population. Trees 14: 329-333.
43. Veneklaas, E. J., and H. Poorter. 1998. Carbon partitioning strategies of tropical tree seedlings in contrasting light environment. In H. Lambers, H. Poorter, and M. M. I. Van Vuuren [eds.], Inherent variation in plant growth: Physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences, 337-361. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands.
44. Westoby, M., D. S. Falster, A. T. Moles, P. A. Vesk, and I. J. Wright. 2002. Plant ecological strategies: Some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 125-159.
45. Wilson, B. F. 1966. Development of the shoot system of Acer rubrum L. Harvard Forest Paper no. 14, 1-21.
46. Wilson, B. F. 2000. Apical control of branch growth and angle in woody plants. American Journal of Botany 87: 601-607.
47. Yagi, T. 2006. Relationships between shoot size and branching patterns in 10 broad-leaved tall tree species in a Japanese cool-temperate forest. Botany 84: 1894-1907 (formerly Canadian Journal of Botany).
48. Zwieniecki, M. A., C. K. Boyce, and N. M. Holbrook. 2004. Hydraulic limitations imposed by crown placement determine final size and shape of Quercus rubra L. leaves. Plant, Cell & Environment 27: 357-365.