Biomass allocation strategies within a leaf: Implication for leaf size optimization

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2015.0094

Abstract

Abstract: Aims

The variations in leaf size result from the integrated effects of many factors. Study of the mechanism to reach the optimum leaf size could help us better understand plant adaption and evolution, and plant life history strategies. Here we aim to test the hypothesis that leaf size is affected by the biomass allocation strategy within a leaf.

Methods

The relationships between leaf size and different biomass partitioning patterns within a leaf were studied for 19 evergreen and 30 deciduous broadleaved woody species from Qingliang Mountain, Zhejiang, China. The standardized major axis estimation method was used to examine the scaling relationship between lamina size and petiole size within a leaf. The relationship between leaf size and support investment ratio within a leaf was estimated by the Model Type I regression analysis.

Important findings

Biomass allocation in petiole increased with leaf size similarly in both evergreen and deciduous leaves, which resulted from the significant allometric scaling relationship between petiole mass and lamina mass (and area) with slopes significantly larger than 1.0, independent of leaf habit. However, evergreen species were found to have a greater petiole mass at a given lamina mass or area than deciduous species, which may be due to their higher demand for mechanic support and resistance to freezing-induced embolism in petioles. Results suggest that leaf size could be affected by the fraction of support investment within a leaf.

Key words: allometric scaling, biomass allocation, leaf habit, leaf size, support investments

Shao-An PAN, Guo-Quan PENG, Dong-Mei YANG. Biomass allocation strategies within a leaf: Implication for leaf size optimization[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2015, 39(10): 971-979.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2015.0094

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2015/V39/I10/971

Figures/Tables 4

References 58

[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.
[2]	Bragg JG, Westoby M (2002). Leaf size and foraging for light in a sclerophyll woodland.Functional Ecology, 16, 633-639.
[3]	Brites D, Valladares F (2005). Implications of opposite phyllotaxis for light interception efficiency of Mediterranean woody plants.Trees, 19, 671-679.
[4]	Cao KF, Ohkubo T (1998). Allometry, root/shoot ratio and root architecture in understory saplings of deciduous dicotyledonous trees in central Japan.Ecological Research, 13, 217-227.
[5]	Castro-Díez P, Puyravaud JP, Cornelissen JHC (2000). Leaf structure and anatomy as related to leaf mass per area variation in seedlings of a wide range of woody plant species and types.Oecologia, 124, 476-486.
[6]	Cavender-Bares J, Cortes P, Rambal S, Joffre R, Miles B, Rocheteau A (2005). Summer and winter sensitivity of leaves and xylem to minimum freezing temperatures: A comparison of co-occurring Mediterranean oaks that differ in leaf lifespan.New Phytologist, 168, 597-612.
[7]	Cavender-Bares J, Holbrook NM (2001). Hydraulic properties and freezing-induced cavitation in sympatric evergreen and deciduous oaks with contrasting habitats.Plant, Cell & Environment, 24, 1243-1256.
[8]	Cornelissen JHC (1999). A triangular relationship between leaf size and seed size among woody species: Allometry, ontogeny, ecology and taxonomy.Oecologia, 118, 248-255.
[9]	Corner EJH (1949). The durian theory or the origin of the modern tree.Annals of Botany, 13, 367-414.
[10]	Falster DS, Warton DI, Wright IJ (2006). User’s guide to SMATR: Standardised major axis tests and routines version 2.0. . Cited: 11 March 2015
[11]	Givnish TJ (1984). Leaf and canopy adaptations in tropical forests. In: Medina E, Mooney HA, Vasquez-Yanes C eds. Physiological Ecology of Plants of the Wet Tropics. Springer, Berlin. 51-84.
[12]	Givnish TJ (1987). Comparative studies of leaf form: Assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints.The New Phytologist, 106, 131-160.
[13]	Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 239.
[14]	Horn HS (1971). The Adaptive Geometry of Trees (Vol. 3). Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.
[15]	Huang CL (1992). Florogeographical analysis of Mount Qingliangfeng Natural Reserve in Tianmu Mountains.Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College, 9, 277-282. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[黄成林 (1992). 天目山清凉峰自然保护区植物区系地理分析. 浙江林学院学报, 9, 277-282.]
[16]	Körner C (1991). Some often overlooked plant characteristics as determinants of plant growth: A reconsideration.Functional Ecology, 5, 162-173.
[17]	Li GY, Yang DM, Sun SC (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.
[18]	McDonald PG, Fonseca CR, Overton JM, Westoby M (2003). Leaf-size divergence along rainfall and soil-nutrient gradients: Is the method of size reduction common among clades?Functional Ecology, 17, 50-57.
[19]	Milla R, Reich PB (2007). The scaling of leaf area and mass: The cost of light interception increases with leaf size.Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2109-2115.
[20]	Moles AT, Westoby M (2000). Do small leaves expand faster than large leaves, and do shorter expansion times reduce herbivore damage?Oikos, 90, 517-524.
[21]	Niinemets Ü (1998). Are compound-leaved woody species inherently shade-intolerant? An analysis of species ecological requirements and foliar support costs.Plant Ecology, 134, 1-11.
[22]	Niinemets Ü, Kull K (1994). Leaf weight per area and leaf size of 85 Estonian woody species in relation to shade tolerance and light availability.Forest Ecology and Management, 70, 1-10.
[23]	Niinemets Ü, Kull O (1999). Biomass investment in leaf lamina versus lamina support in relation to growth irradiance and leaf size in temperate deciduous trees.Tree Physiology, 19, 349-358.
[24]	Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tobias M (2006). Leaf size modifies support biomass distribution among stems, petioles and mid-ribs in temperate plants.New Phytologist, 171, 91-104.
[25]	Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tobias M (2007). Leaf shape and venation pattern alter the support investments within leaf lamina in temperate species: A neglected source of leaf physiological differentiation?Functional Ecology, 21, 28-40.
[26]	Niinemets Ü, Sack L (2006). Structural determinants of leaf light-harvesting capacity and photosynthetic potentials. In: Esser K, Lüttge U, Beyschlag W, Murata J eds. Progress in Botany. Springer, Berlin. 385-419.
[27]	Niklas KJ (1993). Testing “economy in design” in plants: Are the petioles and rachises of leaves “designed” according to the principle of uniform strength?Annals of Botany, 71, 33-41.
[28]	Niklas KJ (1999). A mechanical perspective on foliage leaf form and function.New Phytologist, 143, 19-31.
[29]	Niklas KJ, Cobb ED, Niinemets Ü, Reich PB, Sellin A, Shipley B, Wright IJ (2007). “Diminishing returns” in the scaling of functional leaf traits across and within species groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 8891-8896.
[30]	Parkhurst DF, Loucks OL (1972). Optimal leaf size in relation to environment.The Journal of Ecology, 60, 505-537.
[31]	Pearcy RW, Yang W (1998). The functional morphology of light capture and carbon gain in the Redwood forest understorey plant Adenocaulon bicolor Hook.Functional Ecology, 12, 543-552.
[32]	Pearcy RW, Muraoka H, Valladares F (2005). Crown architecture in sun and shade environments: Assessing function and trade-offs with a three-dimensional simulation model.New Phytologist, 166, 791-800.
[33]	Pickup M, Westoby M, Basden A (2005). Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size.Functional Ecology, 19, 88-97.
[34]	Pitman E (1939). A note on normal correlation.Biometrika, 31, 9-12.
[35]	Price CA, Weitz JS (2012). Allometric covariation: A hallmark behavior of plants and leaves.New Phytologist, 193, 882-889.
[36]	Qian H, Wang SL (1988). Major forest vegetation types and their distributions in Qingliang Mountain Natural Reserve (JQNR) of Jixi County, Anhui Province.Journal of Ecology, 7(2), 32-36. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[钱宏, 汪思龙 (1988). 安徽省绩溪县清凉峰自然保护区主要森林植被类型及其分布. 生态学杂志, 7(2), 32-36.]
[37]	Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1992). Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems.Ecological Monographs, 62, 365-392.
[38]	Reich PB (1998). Variation among plant species in leaf turnover rates and associated traits: Implications for growth at all lefe stages. In: Lambers H, Poorter H, van Vuuren MMI eds. Inherent Variation in Plant Growth. Physiological Mechanisms and Ecological Consequences. Backuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. 467-487.
[39]	Roth-Nebelsick A, Uhl D, Mosbrugger V, Kerp H (2001). Evolution and function of leaf venation architecture: A review.Annals of Botany, 87, 553-566.
[40]	Sokal RR, Rolhf FJ (1995). Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman Company, New York.
[41]	Song CS (1997). Scientific Surver of Qingliangfeng Nature Reserve. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. (in Chinese)
	[宋朝枢 (1997). 浙江清凉峰自然保护区科学考察集. 中国林业出版社, 北京.]
[42]	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.
[43]	Takenaka A (1994). Effects of leaf blade narrowness and petiole length on the light capture efficiency of a shoot.Ecological Research, 9, 109-114.
[44]	Taylor SE (1975). Optimal leaf form. In: Perspectives of Biophysical Ecology. Vol. 12. Springer, Berlin. 73-86.
[45]	Taylor SE, Sexton OJ (1972). Some implications of leaf tearing in Musaceae.Ecology, 53, 143-149.
[46]	Tomlinson PB (1987). Architecture of tropical plants.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18, 1-21.
[47]	Valladares F, Skillman JB, Pearcy RW (2002). Convergence in light capture efficiencies among tropical forest understory plants with contrasting crown architectures: A case of morphological compensation.American Journal of Botany, 89, 1275-1284.
[48]	Warton DI, Weber NC (2002). Common slope tests for bivariate errors-in-variables models.Biometrical Journal, 44, 161-174.
[49]	Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006). Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry.Biological Reviews, 81, 259-291.
[50]	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.
[51]	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.
[52]	Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas ML, Niinemets U, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum.Nature, 428, 821-827.
[53]	Wright IJ, Westoby M (2001). Understanding seedling growth relationships through specific leaf area and leaf nitrogen concentration: Generalisations across growth forms and growth irradiance.Oecologia, 127, 21-29.
[54]	Wright IJ, Westoby M, Reich PB (2002). Convergence towards higher leaf mass per area in dry and nutrient-poor habitats has different consequences for leaf life span.Journal of Ecology, 90, 534-543.
[55]	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.
[56]	Yang DM, Niklas KJ, Xiang S, Sun SC (2010). Size-dependent leaf area ratio in plant twigs: Implication for leaf size optimization.Annals of Botany, 105, 71-77.
[57]	Yang DM, Zhang JJ, Zhou D, Qian MJ, Zheng Y, Jin LM (2012). Leaf and twig functional traits of woody plants and their relationships with environmental change: A review.Chinese Journal of Ecology, 31, 702-713. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[杨冬梅, 章佳佳, 周丹, 钱敏杰, 郑瑶, 金灵妙 (2012). 木本植物茎叶功能性状及其关系随环境变化的研究进展. 生态学杂志, 31, 702-713.]
[58]	Zhu JD, Meng TT, Ni J, Su HX, Xie ZQ, Zhang SR, Zheng YR, Xiao CW (2011). Within-leaf allometric relationships of mature forests in different bioclimatic zones vary with plant functional types.Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 35, 687-698. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[祝介东, 孟婷婷, 倪健, 苏宏新, 谢宗强, 张守仁, 郑元润, 肖春旺 (2011). 不同气候带间成熟林植物叶性状间异速生长关系随功能型的变异. 植物生态学报, 35, 687-698.]

功能组 Functional group	样本量 No. of samples	叶面积 Leaf area (cm²)	叶鲜质量 Leaf fresh mass (g)	叶干质量 Leaf dry mass (g)	叶柄/叶片干质量 Petiole/lamina dry mass ratio	叶柄/叶干质量 Petiole/leaf dry mass ratio
落叶 Deciduous	30	31.351 ± 3.634^b	0.430 ± 0.051	0.156 ± 0.019	0.059 ± 0.006	0.055 ± 0.005
常绿 Evergreen	19	19.783 ± 3.526^a	0.443 ± 0.087	0.167 ± 0.024	0.061 ± 0.009	0.056 ± 0.007

功能组 Functional group	样本量 No. of samples	叶面积 Leaf area (cm²)	叶鲜质量 Leaf fresh mass (g)	叶干质量 Leaf dry mass (g)	叶柄/叶片干质量 Petiole/lamina dry mass ratio	叶柄/叶干质量 Petiole/leaf dry mass ratio
落叶 Deciduous	30	31.351 ± 3.634^b	0.430 ± 0.051	0.156 ± 0.019	0.059 ± 0.006	0.055 ± 0.005
常绿 Evergreen	19	19.783 ± 3.526^a	0.443 ± 0.087	0.167 ± 0.024	0.061 ± 0.009	0.056 ± 0.007

指标(y轴-x轴) Index (y-axis-x-axis)	功能组 Functional group	样本量 No. of samples	决定系数 Coefficient of determination	斜率(95%置信区间) Slope (95% confidence interval)
叶面积-叶柄干质量 Leaf area - petiole dry mass	落叶 Deciduous	30	0.805	0.603 (0.509, 0.715)
叶面积-叶柄干质量 Leaf area - petiole dry mass	常绿 Evergreen	19	0.883	0.617 (0.519, 0.735)
叶片干质量-叶柄干质量 Lamina dry mass - petiole dry mass	落叶 Deciduous	30	0.794	0.615 (0.516, 0.732)
叶片干质量-叶柄干质量 Lamina dry mass - petiole dry mass	常绿 Evergreen	19	0.876	0.659 (0.551, 0.788)

指标(y轴-x轴) Index (y-axis-x-axis)	功能组 Functional group	样本量 No. of samples	决定系数 Coefficient of determination	斜率(95%置信区间) Slope (95% confidence interval)
叶面积-叶柄干质量 Leaf area - petiole dry mass	落叶 Deciduous	30	0.805	0.603 (0.509, 0.715)
叶面积-叶柄干质量 Leaf area - petiole dry mass	常绿 Evergreen	19	0.883	0.617 (0.519, 0.735)
叶片干质量-叶柄干质量 Lamina dry mass - petiole dry mass	落叶 Deciduous	30	0.794	0.615 (0.516, 0.732)
叶片干质量-叶柄干质量 Lamina dry mass - petiole dry mass	常绿 Evergreen	19	0.876	0.659 (0.551, 0.788)