2002•New PhytologistRequires access

Dry matter content as a measure of dry matter concentration in plants and their parts

Bill Shipley, Thi‐Tam Vu

Open publisher page 249 citations

Abstract

Summary This study compared the predictive ability of dry matter content (DMC, dry mass per fresh mass) of leaves, stems, roots and entire plants in relation to dry matter concentration (D, dry mass per volume of plant organ). Data came from 28 species of field‐collected plants (woody and herbaceous) and 17 species of herbaceous plants grown in hydroponic sand culture. Specific leaf areas were also measured. Dry matter content of the herbaceous plants grown in sand culture varied more between tissue types than did dry matter concentration but the correlation among plant parts was stronger when using DMC. Means and standard errors for DMC (g g −1 ) were 0.212 ± 0.009 (leaves), 0.176 ± 0.012 (support tissues) and 0.170 ± 0.021 (roots); for D (g cm −3 ) the values were 0.158 ± 0.010 (leaves), 0.168 ± 0.017 (support tissues) and 0.153 ± 0.013 (roots). Leaf DMC provided approximate estimates of leaf D ( r = 0.76) for the field‐collected plants but sclerophyllous leaves from shrubs restricted to acidic bogs proved to be outliers. The relationship between these two variables was stronger in the herbaceous species grown in sand culture, especially so for whole plant estimates ( r = 0.91). Dry matter content and dry matter concentration were equally good predictors of specific leaf area.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Summary This study compared the predictive ability of dry matter content (DMC, dry mass per fresh mass) of leaves, stems, roots and entire plants in relation to dry matter concentration (D, dry mass per volume of plant organ). Data came from 28 species of field‐collected plants (woody and herbaceous) and 17 species of herbaceous plants grown in hydroponic sand culture. Specific leaf areas were also measured. Dry matter content of the herbaceous plants grown in sand culture varied more between tissue types than did dry matter concentration but the correlation among plant parts was stronger when using DMC. Means and standard errors for DMC (g g −1 ) were 0.212 ± 0.009 (leaves), 0.176 ± 0.012 (support tissues) and 0.170 ± 0.021 (roots); for D (g cm −3 ) the values were 0.158 ± 0.010 (leaves), 0.168 ± 0.017 (support tissues) and 0.153 ± 0.013 (roots). Leaf DMC provided approximate estimates of leaf D ( r = 0.76) for the field‐collected plants but sclerophyllous leaves from shrubs restricted to acidic bogs proved to be outliers. The relationship between these two variables was stronger in the herbaceous species grown in sand culture, especially so for whole plant estimates ( r = 0.91). Dry matter content and dry matter concentration were equally good predictors of specific leaf area.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 249 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Summary This study compared the predictive ability of dry matter content (DMC, dry mass per fresh mass) of leaves, stems, roots and entire plants in relation to dry matter concentration (D, dry mass per volume of plant organ). Data came from 28 species of field‐collected plants (woody and herbaceous) and 17 species of herbaceous plants grown in hydroponic sand culture. Specific leaf areas were also measured. Dry matter content of the herbaceous plants grown in sand culture varied more between tissue types than did dry matter concentration but the correlation among plant parts was stronger when using DMC. Means and standard errors for DMC (g g −1 ) were 0.212 ± 0.009 (leaves), 0.176 ± 0.012 (support tissues) and 0.170 ± 0.021 (roots); for D (g cm −3 ) the values were 0.158 ± 0.010 (leaves), 0.168 ± 0.017 (support tissues) and 0.153 ± 0.013 (roots). Leaf DMC provided approximate estimates of leaf D ( r = 0.76) for the field‐collected plants but sclerophyllous leaves from shrubs restricted to acidic bogs proved to be outliers. The relationship between these two variables was stronger in the herbaceous species grown in sand culture, especially so for whole plant estimates ( r = 0.91). Dry matter content and dry matter concentration were equally good predictors of specific leaf area.

Key concepts: Herbaceous plant, Dry matter, Dry weight, Specific leaf area, Botany, Biology, Agronomy, Horticulture

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Dry matter content as a measure of dry matter concentration in plants and their parts — Research Paper | ScholarLens