2005•Functional EcologyOpen access

Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size

Melinda Pickup, Mark Westoby, Alison M. Basden

Open full text 144 citations

Abstract

Summary The leaf size–twig size spectrum is an important spectrum of variation between species, although the costs and benefits of largervssmaller leaf size are poorly understood. This study quantified the dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size, across 70 species from four sites contrasted on the basis of rainfall and soil nutrients in east‐temperate Australia. Leaf mass fraction beyond 10 mm2of conductive cross‐section (LMF10) varied threefold and was strongly positively correlated with leaf size, both across all species and within each habitat. This and other key correlations were significant both across species and as evolutionary divergences. An LMF10advantage for larger‐leaved species should translate into a proportional advantage in dry mass acquisition, yet species with small leaves persist and sustain populations. This raises the question as to what factors might counterbalance an LMF advantage associated with larger leaf size. Within some sites, specific leaf area (SLA) decreased with leaf size, which counterbalanced the LMF10advantage. Within other sites, and across all sites, SLA did not decline with leaf size. In these comparisons other factors, such as avoidance of overheating, must counterbalance the LMF10advantage to larger‐leaved species. Wood density was negatively correlated with leaf size. However, the relationship was weaker within sites in the lower rainfall zone, and species in these sites had generally higher wood density. Sapwood cross‐sectional area per unit leaf area (Huber value) varied approximately ninefold across all species, and was correlated with both leaf size and SLA across all species, but not within sites.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Summary The leaf size–twig size spectrum is an important spectrum of variation between species, although the costs and benefits of largervssmaller leaf size are poorly understood. This study quantified the dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size, across 70 species from four sites contrasted on the basis of rainfall and soil nutrients in east‐temperate Australia. Leaf mass fraction beyond 10 mm2of conductive cross‐section (LMF10) varied threefold and was strongly positively correlated with leaf size, both across all species and within each habitat. This and other key correlations were significant both across species and as evolutionary divergences. An LMF10advantage for larger‐leaved species should translate into a proportional advantage in dry mass acquisition, yet species with small leaves persist and sustain populations. This raises the question as to what factors might counterbalance an LMF advantage associated with larger leaf size. Within some sites, specific leaf area (SLA) decreased with leaf size, which counterbalanced the LMF10advantage. Within other sites, and across all sites, SLA did not decline with leaf size. In these comparisons other factors, such as avoidance of overheating, must counterbalance the LMF10advantage to larger‐leaved species. Wood density was negatively correlated with leaf size. However, the relationship was weaker within sites in the lower rainfall zone, and species in these sites had generally higher wood density. Sapwood cross‐sectional area per unit leaf area (Huber value) varied approximately ninefold across all species, and was correlated with both leaf size and SLA across all species, but not within sites.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 144 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 The leaf size–twig size spectrum is an important spectrum of variation between species, although the costs and benefits of largervssmaller leaf size are poorly understood. This study quantified the dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size, across 70 species from four sites contrasted on the basis of rainfall and soil nutrients in east‐temperate Australia. Leaf mass fraction beyond 10 mm2of conductive cross‐section (LMF10) varied threefold and was strongly positively correlated with leaf size, both across all species and within each habitat. This and other key correlations were significant both across species and as evolutionary divergences. An LMF10advantage for larger‐leaved species should translate into a proportional advantage in dry mass acquisition, yet species with small leaves persist and sustain populations. This raises the question as to what factors might counterbalance an LMF advantage associated with larger leaf size. Within some sites, specific leaf area (SLA) decreased with leaf size, which counterbalanced the LMF10advantage. Within other sites, and across all sites, SLA did not decline with leaf size. In these comparisons other factors, such as avoidance of overheating, must counterbalance the LMF10advantage to larger‐leaved species. Wood density was negatively correlated with leaf size. However, the relationship was weaker within sites in the lower rainfall zone, and species in these sites had generally higher wood density. Sapwood cross‐sectional area per unit leaf area (Huber value) varied approximately ninefold across all species, and was correlated with both leaf size and SLA across all species, but not within sites.

Key concepts: Biology, Leaf size, Specific leaf area, Twig, Temperate climate, Habitat, Dry weight, Ecology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size — Research Paper | ScholarLens