The leaf-area shrinkage effect can bias paleoclimate and ecology research

American Journal of Botany

Volumn 99, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1756-1763

  Blonder, Benjamin ^a,b   Buzzard, Vanessa ^a   Simova, Irena ^a,c   Sloat, Lindsey ^a,b   Boyle, Brad ^a   Lipson, Rebecca ^d   Aguilar Beaucage, Brianna ^e   Andrade, Angelina ^e   Barber, Benjamin ^e   Barnes, Chris ^e   Bushey, Dharma ^e   Cartagena, Paulina ^e   Chaney, Max ^e   Contreras, Karina ^e   Cox, Mandarava ^e   Cueto, Maya ^e   Curtis, Cannon ^e   Fisher, Mariah ^e   Furst, Lindsey ^e   Gallegos, Jessica ^e   Hall, Ruby ^e   Hauschild, Amelia ^e   Jerez, Alex ^e   Jones, Nadja ^e   Klucas, Aaron ^e   Kono, Anita ^e   Lamb, Mary ^e   Matthai, Jacob David Ruiz ^e   Mcintyre, Colten ^e   Mckenna, Joshua ^e   Mosier, Nicholas ^e   Navabi, Maya ^e   Ochoa, Alex ^e   Pace, Liam ^e   Plassmann, Ryland ^e   Richter, Rachel ^e   Russakoff, Ben ^e   Aubyn, Holden St ^e   Stagg, Ryan ^e   Sterner, Marley ^e   Stewart, Emily ^e   Thompson, Ting Ting ^e   Thornton, Jake ^e   Trujillo, Parker J ^e   Volpe, Trevor J ^e   Enquist, Brian J ^a,b   more..

^a The University of Arizona   (United States)

^b ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^d Tucson Unified School District   (United States)

^e Middle school   (United States)

Author keywords

Dry area; Fresh area; Leaf area; Leaf mass per area; Leaf size; Shrinkage specific leaf area; Stomatal density; Vein density

Indexed keywords

WATER;

DROUGHT RESISTANCE; FOSSILIZATION; LEAF AREA; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; PALEOCLIMATE; PHYLOGENETICS; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; RESEARCH WORK; SPECIMEN BANK; STOMATA; TROPICAL REGION;

ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; CLIMATE; DRUG EFFECT; ECOLOGY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HISTOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT LEAF; RESEARCH; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STANDARD;

ANGIOSPERMS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLIMATE; ECOLOGY; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PLANT LEAVES; RESEARCH; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; WATER;

EID: 84869053227     PISSN: 00029122     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1200062     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ABRAMS, M. D., AND M. E. KUBISKE. 1990. Photosynthesis and water relations during drought in Acer rubrum L. genotypes from contrasting sites in central Pennsylvania. Functional Ecology 4: 727-733.
2. ACKERLY, D. D. 2004. Adaptation, niche conservatism, and convergence: Comparative studies of leaf evolution in the California chaparral. American Naturalist 163: 654-671.
3. BARTLETT, M. K., C. SCOFFONI, AND L. SACK. 2012. The determinants of leaf turgor loss point and prediction of drought tolerance of species and biomes: A global meta-analysis. Ecology Letters 15: 393-405.
4. BLONDER, B., C. VIOLLE, L. P. BENTLEY, AND B. J. ENQUIST. 2011. Venation networks and the origin of the leaf economics spectrum. Ecology Letters 14: 91-100.
5. BRODRIBB, T., T. FEILD, AND G. JORDAN. 2007. Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiology 144: 1890-1898.
6. BRODRIBB, T. J., AND G. J. JORDAN. 2011. Water supply and demand remain balanced during leaf acclimation of Nothofagus cunninghamii trees. New Phytologist 192: 437-448.
7. BUSWELL, J. M., A. T. MOLES, AND S. HARTLEY. 2011. Is rapid evolution common in introduced plant species? Journal of Ecology 99: 214-224.
8. CHEUNG, Y. N. S., M. T. TYREE, AND J. DAINTY. 1975. Water relations parameters on single leaves obtained in a pressure bomb and some ecological interpretations. Canadian Journal of Botany 53: 1342-1346.
9. CORDELL, S., G. GOLDSTEIN, D. MUELLER-DOMBOIS, D. WEBB, AND P. M. VITOUSEK. 1998. Physiological and morphological variation in Metrosideros polymorpha, a dominant Hawaiian tree species, along an altitudinal gradient: The role of phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 113: 188-196.
10. CORNELISSEN, J. H. C., S. L AVOREL, E. GARNIER, S. DIAZ, N. BUCHMANN, D. E. GURVICH, P. B. REICH, ET AL. 2003. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany 51: 335-380
11. DAVIES, T. J., T. G. BARRACLOUGH, M. W. CHASE, P. S. SOLTIS, D. E. SOLTIS, AND V. S AVOLAINEN. 2004. Darwin's abominable mystery: Insights from a supertree of the angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 1904-1909.
12. DILCHER, D. L. 1974. Approaches to identifi cation of angiosperm leaf remains. Botanical Review 40: 1-157.
13. GARNIER, E., B. SHIPLEY, C. ROUMET, AND G. LAURENT. 2001. A standardized protocol for the determination of specifi c leaf area and leaf dry matter content. Functional Ecology 15: 688-695.
14. GIVNISH, T. J. 1987. Comparative studies of leaf form-Assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New Phytologist 106: 131-160.
15. GOTTSCHALK, K. W. 1994. Shade, leaf growth and crown development of Quercus rubra, Quercus velutina, Prunus serotina and Acer rubrum seedlings. Tree Physiology 14: 735-749.
16. GREENWOOD, D. 1991. The taphonomy of plant macrofossils. In S. Donovan [ed.], The processes of fossilisation, 141-169. Belhaven Press, London, UK.
17. HIJMANS, R. J., S. E. CAMERON, J. L. PARRA, P. G. JONES, AND A. JARVIS. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965-1978.
18. JONES, H. 1992. Plants and microclimate, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. JORDAN, G. 2011. A critical framework for the assessment of biological palaeoproxies: Predicting past climate and levels of atmospheric CO2 from fossil leaves. New Phytologist 192: 29-44.
20. KNAPP, A. K. 1984. Water relations and growth of three grasses during wet and drought years in a tallgrass prairie. Oecologia 65: 35-43.
21. LAVEINE, J.-P. 1987. Fossilisation and systematics of carboniferous compression fl oras. Compte rendu-Congres international de stratigraphie et de geologie du carbonifere 3: 124-127.
22. LAWLOR, D. W., AND G. CORNIC. 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water defi cits in higher plants. Plant, Cell & Environment 25: 275-294.
23. LI, B., J. I. SUZUKI, AND T. HARA. 1998. Latitudinal variation in plant size and relative growth rate in Arabidopsis thaliana. Oecologia 115: 293-301.
24. LIAW, A., AND M. WIENER. 2002. Classifi cation and regression by random-Forest. R News 2: 18-22.
25. MAASS, J. M., J. M. VOSE, W. T. SWANK, AND A. MARTÍNEZ-YRÍZAR. 1995. Seasonal changes of leaf area index (LAI) in a tropical deciduous forest in west Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 74: 171-180.
26. MARKESTEIJN, L., L. POORTER, H. PAZ, L. SACK, AND F. BONGERS. 2011. Ecological differentiation in xylem cavitation resistance is associated with stem and leaf structural traits. Plant, Cell & Environment 34: 137-148.
27. MCELWAIN, J. C. 1998. Do fossil plants signal palaeoatmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the geological past? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 353: 83-96.
28. MITCHELL, P. J., E. J. VENEKLAAS, H. LAMBERS, AND S. S. O. BURGESS. 2008. Leaf water relations during summer water defi cit: Differential responses in turgor maintenance and variation in leaf structure among different plant communities in south-western Australia. Plant, Cell & Environment 31: 1791-1802.
29. MOPPER, S., AND D. SIMBERLOFF. 1995. Differential herbivory in an oak population-The role of plant phenology and insect performance. Ecology 76: 1233-1241.
30. PEÑUELAS, J., AND R. MATAMALA. 1990. Changes in N and S leaf content, stomatal density and specifi c leaf area of 14 plant species during the last three centuries of CO2 increase. Journal of Experimental Botany 41: 1119-1124.
31. PEPPE, D. J., D. L. ROYER, B. CARIGLINO, S. Y. OLIVER, S. NEWMAN, E. LEIGHT, G. ENIKOLOPOV, ET AL. 2011. Sensitivity of leaf size and shape to climate: Global patterns and paleoclimatic applications. New Phytologist 190: 724-739.
32. PRICE, C. A., AND B. J. ENQUIST. 2007. Scaling mass and morphology in leaves: An extension of the WBE model. Ecology 88: 1132-1141.
33. REX, G. 1986. Further experimental investigations on the formation of plant compression fossils. Lethaia 19: 143-159.
34. REX, G., AND W. CHALONER. 1983. The experimental formation of plant compression fossils. Palaeontology 26: 231-252.
35. RITCHIE, M. E., AND H. OLFF. 1999. Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400: 557-560.
36. ROYER, D. L., L. SACK, P. WILF, C. H. LUSK, G. J. JORDAN, U. NIINEMETS, I. J. WRIGHT, ET AL. 2007. Fossil leaf economics quantifi ed: Calibration, Eocene case study, and implications. Paleobiology 33: 574-589.
37. SPICER, R. 1981. The sorting and deposition of allochthonous plant material in a modern environment at Silwood Lake, Silwood Park, Berkshire, England: A study of how a potential plant fossil was formed in a fl uviolacustrine environment. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.
38. VAIERETTI, M. V., S. DIAZ, D. VILE, AND E. GARNIER. 2007. Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species. Annals of Botany 99: 955-958.
39. VERWIJST, T., AND D.-Z. WEN. 1996. Leaf allometry of Salix viminalis during the fi rst growing season. Tree Physiology 16: 655-660.
40. WEBB, C. O., D. D. ACKERLY, AND S. W. KEMBEL. 2008. Phylocom: Software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 24: 2098-2100.
41. WIKSTRÖM, N., V. S AVOLAINEN, AND M. W. CHASE. 2001. Evolution of the angiosperms: Calibrating the family tree. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 268: 2211-2220.
42. WILF, P., S. L. WING, D. R. GREENWOOD, AND C. L. GREENWOOD. 1998. Using fossil leaves as paleoprecipitation indicators: An Eocene example. Geology 26: 203-206.
43. WRIGHT, I. J., P. B. REICH, M. WESTOBY, D. D. ACKERLY, Z. BARUCH, F. BONGERS, J. CAVENDER-BARES, ET AL. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428: 821-827.
44. ZIMMERMANN, U. 1978. Physics of turgor-and osmoregulation. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 29: 121-148.