Testing of Corner’s rules across woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province: effects of individual density

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims Corner’s rules reflect the architectural strategies of plants with respect to deployment of twig size and leaf size, as well as of the number of twigs and leaves. The objective of this study was to examine how Corner’s rules would vary among plants with different individual densities.
Methods The study site is located in the Tiantong National Forest Park (29.87° N, 121.65° E), Zhejiang Province. We measured twig cross-sectional area (twig size), total leaf area (leaf size per twig), and the number of twigs at a given twig size (branching intensity) in woody plants across 25 plots differing in stem density to examine the effects of individual competition on Corner’s rules. The standardized major axis (SMA) analysis was conducted to determine the quantitative relationships of twig size with leaf size and branching intensity.
Important findings Significant, positive allometric relationships between cross-sectional area and total leaf area were found in individual plants across all communities. There was no significant difference among communities of different density intervals in the slope of the linear regression between cross-sectional area and total leaf area of individual plants, and the common slope of the regressions was significantly greater than 1 (p < 0.001). The intercept was significantly greater for plants in communities with higher density than in those with lower density (p < 0.001), indicating that plants in a high density community support greater total leaf area than in a low density community for a given twig size. In contrast, a significant, negative allometric scaling relationship was found between branching intensity and cross-sectional area in individual plants across different communities. Also, no significant difference was found among plants in communities of different density intervals in the slope of the regression between branching intensity and cross-sectional area, and the common slope of the regressions was significantly less than -1 (p < 0.001). The intercept for the regression relationship between twig area and branching intensity was the same among plants in communities of different density intervals (p > 0.05), suggesting that plants in a high density community do not deploy more twigs per twig size than in a low density community. In summary, this study demonstrated that plants responded to changes in individual density by maintaining an invariant regression slope for the twig size-leaf size relationship and the twig size-branching intensity relationship, and that the Corner’s rules were not affected by individual density of the communities in the Tiantong region. However, changes in the intercept of the regression between twig size and leaf size indicate that deployment strategies between twig and leaf sizes could be adjusted with increasing individual plant competition, thus structuring species coexistence through niche differentiation.

Key words: allometric growth, community density, Corner’s rules, individual competition, twig-leaf relationship

ZHANG Jian-Hong, SHI Qing-Ru, XU Ming-Shan, ZHAO Yan-Tao, ZHONG Qiang, ZHANG Fu-Jie, YAN En-Rong. Testing of Corner’s rules across woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province: effects of individual density[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2014, 38(7): 655-664.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2014.00061

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2014/V38/I7/655

Figures/Tables 4

References 40

[1]	Ackerly DD, Donoghue MJ (1998). Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner’s rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples ( Acer). The American Naturalist, 152, 767-791. URL PMID
[2]	Brouat C, Gibernau M, Amsellem L, McKey D (1998). Corner’s rules revisited: ontogenetic and interspecific patterns in leaf-stem allometry. New Phytologist, 139, 459-470.
[3]	Corner E (1949). The durian theory or the origin of the modern tree. Annals of Botany, 13, 367-414.
[4]	Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001). Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature, 410, 655-660. URL PMID
[5]	Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002). Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science, 295, 1517-1520. DOI URL PMID
[6]	Enquist BJ, West GB, Charnov EL, Brown JH (1999). Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature, 401, 907-911.
[7]	Falster DS, Warton DI, Wright IJ (2006). User’s guide to SMATR: Standardised Major Axis Tests & Routines Version 2. 0. http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR/. (7 April 2011, date last accessed). Cited 2014-01-13.
[8]	Givnish TJ (1987). Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New Phytologist, 106(Suppl.), 131-160.
[9]	Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
[10]	Keddy P, Twolan-Strutt L, Shipley B (1997). Experimental evidence that interspecific competitive asymmetry increases with soil productivity. Oikos, 80, 253-256.
[11]	Kleiman D, Aarssen LW (2007). The leaf size/number trade-off in trees. Journal of Ecology, 95, 376– 382.
[12]	Liao JX, Chen J, Jiang MX, Huang HD (2012). Leaf traits and persistence of relict and endangered tree species in a rare plant community. Functional Plant Biology, 39, 512-518. URL PMID
[13]	Liu ZG, Cai YL, Li K (2008). Studies on the leaf size-twig size spectrum of subtropical evergreen board-leaved woody species. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 32, 363-369. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[刘志国, 蔡永立, 李恺 (2008). 亚热带常绿阔叶林植物叶-小枝的异速生长. 植物生态学报, 32, 363-369.]
[14]	Meziane D, Shipley B (1999a). Interacting determinants of specific leaf area in 22 herbaceous species: effects of irradiance and nutrient availability. Plant, Cell & Environment, 22, 447-459.
[15]	Meziane D, Shipley B (1999b). Interacting components of interspecific relative growth rate: constancy and change under differing conditions of light and nutrient supply. Functional Ecology, 13, 611-622.
[16]	Niklas KJ (1992). Plant Biomechanics: an Engineering Approach to Plant form and Function. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[17]	Niklas KJ (1994). Plant Allometry: the Scaling of Form and Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[18]	Normand F, Bissery C, Damour G, Lauri PÉ (2008). Hydraulic and mechanical stem properties affect leaf-stem allometry in mango cultivars. New Phytologist, 178, 590-602.
[19]	Olson ME, Aguirre-Hernández R, Rosell JA (2009). Universal foliage-stem scaling across environments and species in dicot trees: plasticity, biomechanics and Corner’s rules. Ecology Letters, 12, 210-219.
[20]	Pickup M, Westoby M, Basden A (2005). Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size. Functional Ecology, 19, 88-97.
[21]	Pitman EJG (1939). A note on normal correlation. Biometrika, 31, 9-12.
[22]	Preston KA, Ackerly DD (2003). Hydraulic architecture and the evolution of shoot allometry in contrasting climates. American Journal of Botany, 90, 1502-1512.
[23]	Reich PB, Oleksyn J (2004). Global patterns of plant leaf N and P in relation to temperature and latitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 11001-11006.
[24]	Reich PB, Uhl C, Walter MB, Ellsworth DS (1991). Leaf lifespan as a determinant of leaf structure and function among 23 Amazonian tree species. Oecologia, 86, 16-24. URL PMID
[25]	Reich PB, Walter MB, Ellsworth DS (1992). Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62, 365-392.
[26]	Shinozaki K, Yoda K, Hozumi K, Kira T (1964). A quantitative analysis of plant form—the pipe model theory. I. Basic analysis. Japanese Journal of Ecology, 14, 97-105.
[27]	Song YC, Wang XR (1995). Vegetation and Flora of Tiantong National Forest Park Zhejiang Province. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Document Publishing House, Shanghai. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[宋永昌, 王祥荣 (1995). 浙江天童国家森林公园的植被和区系. 上海科学技术文献出版社, 上海.]
[28]	Sun SC, Jin DM, Shi PL (2006). The leaf size-twig size spectrum of temperate woody species along an altitudinal gradient: an invariant allometric scaling relationship. Annals of Botany, 97, 97-107.
[29]	Takenaka A (2000). Shoot growth responses to light microenvironment and correlative inhibition in tree seedlings under a forest canopy. Tree Physiology, 20, 987-991. URL PMID
[30]	Warton DI, Weber NC (2002). Common slope tests for bivariate errors-in-variables models. Biometrical Journal, 44, 161-174.
[31]	Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006). Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biological Reviews, 81, 259-291.
[32]	West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997). A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276, 122-126.
[33]	Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ (2002). Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 125-159.
[34]	Westoby M, Wright IJ (2003). The leaf size-twig size spectrum and its relationship to other important spectra of variation among species. Oecologia, 135, 621-628.
[35]	Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M (2001). Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high- and low-rainfall and high- and low-nutrient habitats. Functional Ecology, 15, 423-434.
[36]	Xu Y, Yang XD, Xie YM, Xu YL, Chang SX, Yan ER (2012). Twig size-number trade-off among woody plants in Tiantong region, Zhejiang Province of China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 36, 1268-1276. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[许月, 杨晓东, 谢一鸣, 徐艺露, Chang SX, 阎恩荣 (2012). 浙江天童木本植物小枝的“大小-数量”权衡. 植物生态学报, 36, 1268-1276.]
[37]	Yan ER, Wang XH, Chang SX, He FL (2013). Scaling relationships among twig size, leaf size and leafing intensity in a successional series of subtropical forests. Tree Physiology, 33, 609-617. DOI URL PMID
[38]	Yang DM, Li GY, Sun SC (2008). The generality of leaf size versus number trade-off in temperate woody species. Annals of Botany, 102, 623-629. URL PMID
[39]	Yang DM, Li GY, Sun SC (2009). The effects of leaf size, leaf habit, and leaf form on leaf/stem relationships in plant twigs of temperate woody species. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 359-366.
[40]	Zimmermann MH (1983). Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap. Springer-Verlag, Berlin .

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体数 Individual number	分组斜率(置信区间) Group slope (CI)	截距 Intercept
枝横截面积-总叶面积 Twig cross-sectional area-total leaf area	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	1.24 (1.20-1.28)^a*	1.47^b
		M (114-156)	1 414	1.20 (1.17-1.23)^a*	1.53^a
		H (156-198)	709	1.18 (1.13-1.23)^b*	1.51^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	1.13 (1.04-1.23)^a*	1.48^b
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	1.08 (0.99-1.17)^b	1.54^a
枝横截面积-分梢密度 Twig cross-sectional area- branching intensity	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	-1.45 (-1.48- -1.42)^a*	0.03^a
		M (114-156)	1 414	-1.46 (-1.49- -1.44)^b*	0.03^a
		H (156-198)	709	-1.46 (-1.50- -1.43)^a*	0.03^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	-1.42 (-1.50- -1.36)^a*	0.90^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	-1.46 (-1.53- -1.40)^b*	0.91^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体数 Individual number	分组斜率(置信区间) Group slope (CI)	截距 Intercept
枝横截面积-总叶面积 Twig cross-sectional area-total leaf area	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	1.24 (1.20-1.28)^a*	1.47^b
		M (114-156)	1 414	1.20 (1.17-1.23)^a*	1.53^a
		H (156-198)	709	1.18 (1.13-1.23)^b*	1.51^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	1.13 (1.04-1.23)^a*	1.48^b
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	1.08 (0.99-1.17)^b	1.54^a
枝横截面积-分梢密度 Twig cross-sectional area- branching intensity	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	933	-1.45 (-1.48- -1.42)^a*	0.03^a
		M (114-156)	1 414	-1.46 (-1.49- -1.44)^b*	0.03^a
		H (156-198)	709	-1.46 (-1.50- -1.43)^a*	0.03^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	178	-1.42 (-1.50- -1.36)^a*	0.90^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	142	-1.46 (-1.53- -1.40)^b*	0.91^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体水平 Individual level	物种水平 Species level
总叶面积 Total leaf area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	84.79 ± 5.15^a (L-M, 0.82)	136.53 ± 39.62^a (L-M, 0.63)
		M (114-156)	88.29 ± 3.72^a(M-H, 0.00)	185.43 ± 43.01^a (M-H, 0.65)
		H (156-198)	68.20 ± 3.60^b (L-H, 0.04)	131.01 ± 28.60^a(L-H, 1.00)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	222.94 ± 23.32^a (L-H, 0.28)	243.55 ± 115.72^a (L-H, 0.85)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	185.86 ± 25.36^a	220.05 ± 66.08^a
枝截面积 Twig cross-sectional area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	2.21 ± 0.09^a (L-M, 0.57)	3.02 ± 0.39^a (L-M, 0.59)
		M (114-156)	2.10 ± 0.07^a(M-H, 0.03)	3.93 ± 0.93^a (M-H, 0.75)
		H (156-198)	1.79 ± 0.08^b (L-H, 0.00)	3.17 ± 0.56^a (L-H, 0.99)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	5.51 ± 0.36^a (L-H, 0.07)	4.23 ± 0.89^a (L-H, 0.67)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	4.39 ± 0.50^a	5.03 ± 1.49^a
分梢密度 Branching intensity (No.·mm^-3)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	0.88 ± 0.08^a (L-M, 0.11)	0.77 ± 0.14^a (L-M, 1.00)
		M (114-156)	0.74 ± 0.03^a (M-H, 0.91)	0.76 ± 0.14^a (M-H, 0.87)
		H (156-198)	0.78 ± 0.04^a (L-H, 0.39)	0.65 ± 0.14^a (L-H, 0.83)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	0.32 ± 0.06^a (L-H, 0.24)	0.75 ± 0.27^a (L-H, 0.39)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	0.41 ± 0.05^a	0.52 ± 0.10^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	个体水平 Individual level	物种水平 Species level
总叶面积 Total leaf area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	84.79 ± 5.15^a (L-M, 0.82)	136.53 ± 39.62^a (L-M, 0.63)
		M (114-156)	88.29 ± 3.72^a(M-H, 0.00)	185.43 ± 43.01^a (M-H, 0.65)
		H (156-198)	68.20 ± 3.60^b (L-H, 0.04)	131.01 ± 28.60^a(L-H, 1.00)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	222.94 ± 23.32^a (L-H, 0.28)	243.55 ± 115.72^a (L-H, 0.85)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	185.86 ± 25.36^a	220.05 ± 66.08^a
枝截面积 Twig cross-sectional area (mm²)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	2.21 ± 0.09^a (L-M, 0.57)	3.02 ± 0.39^a (L-M, 0.59)
		M (114-156)	2.10 ± 0.07^a(M-H, 0.03)	3.93 ± 0.93^a (M-H, 0.75)
		H (156-198)	1.79 ± 0.08^b (L-H, 0.00)	3.17 ± 0.56^a (L-H, 0.99)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	5.51 ± 0.36^a (L-H, 0.07)	4.23 ± 0.89^a (L-H, 0.67)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	4.39 ± 0.50^a	5.03 ± 1.49^a
分梢密度 Branching intensity (No.·mm^-3)	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	0.88 ± 0.08^a (L-M, 0.11)	0.77 ± 0.14^a (L-M, 1.00)
		M (114-156)	0.74 ± 0.03^a (M-H, 0.91)	0.76 ± 0.14^a (M-H, 0.87)
		H (156-198)	0.78 ± 0.04^a (L-H, 0.39)	0.65 ± 0.14^a (L-H, 0.83)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	0.32 ± 0.06^a (L-H, 0.24)	0.75 ± 0.27^a (L-H, 0.39)
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	0.41 ± 0.05^a	0.52 ± 0.10^a

	数据组 Data group	密度区间 Density interval	物种数 Species number	回归系数R² Regression coefficient	分组斜率(置信区间) Group slope (CIs)	共斜率(置信区间) Common slope (CIs)	截距 Intercept
枝截面积-总叶面积 Twig cross-sectional area-total leaf area	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	59	0.65^***	1.10 (0.94-1.28)^a	1.01 (0.98-1.15)	1.53^a
		M (114-156)	59	0.82^***	1.05 (0.94-1.18)^a		1.61^a
		H (156-198)	37	0.76^***	1.06 (0.90-1.26)^a		1.56^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	28	0.77^***	1.13 (0.94-1.38)^a	1.07 (0.96-1.20)	1.54^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	35	0.86^***	1.04 (0.92-1.19) ^a		1.57^a
枝截面积-分梢密度 Twig cross-sectional area-branching intensity	全部个体 All individuals	L (72-114)	59	0.72^***	-1.78 (-2.04- -1.54)^a*	-1.60 (-1.47- -1.73)^§	0.12^a
		M (114-156)	59	0.78^***	-1.57 (-1.78- -1.38)^a*		0.04^a
		H (156-198)	37	0.80^***	-1.46 (-1.70- -1.26)^a*		0.03^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	L (6-15)	28	0.96^***	-1.28 (-1.39- -1.19)^a*	-1.33 (-1.25- -1.4)^§	0.16^a
	大个体 Large-sized individuals	H (15-24)	35	0.92^***	-1.42 (-1.58- -1.28)^a*		0.12^a