| Literature DB >> 26403303 |
Ruili Wang1,2, Guirui Yu1, Nianpeng He1, Qiufeng Wang1, Ning Zhao1,2, Zhiwei Xu1,2, Jianping Ge3.
Abstract
To explore the latitudinal variation of stoEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26403303 PMCID: PMC4585881 DOI: 10.1038/srep14454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Geographic locations and vegetation types of the sampling sites.
JF, Jianfengling; DH, Dinghu; JL, Jiulian; SN, Shennongjia; TY, Taiyue; DL, Dongling; CB, Changbai; LS, Liangshui; HZ, Huzhong. The north-south transect of eastern China (NSTEC) is highlighted with different colors representing different vegetation types32. The map is generated using ArcGIS 10.0 software.
Figure 2Statistics of stomatal density (SDL, (A)) and stomatal length (SLL, (B)) across 760 species.
N, species number; Max, maximum; Min, minimum; SE, standard error; CV, coefficient of variation.
Figure 3Box plots of stomatal density (SDL, (A)) and stomatal length (SLL, (B)) across different plant functional types (PFTs).
The solid and dashed lines across the middle of the box are mean and median values, respectively. N, species number. Statistical differences (P < 0.05) are denoted by different letters using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Figure 4Relationships between stomatal density (SD) and stomatal length (SL) at the species (A) and community levels (B). n, number of observations. Error bars in panel (B) represent ± 1 standard error.
Figure 5Standardized major axis (SMA) regressions between species-level stomatal density (SDL) and stomatal length (SLL) across different growth types (A) and leaf habits (B). “Slope”, difference in SMA slopes; “Elevation”, difference in SMA elevations (i.e. y-axis intercept); *significantly different (P < 0.05); NS, not significantly different (P > 0.05). Sample size and results of regression analyses are presented in Supplementary Table S3.
Figure 6Latitudinal trends of stomatal density (SD) and stomatal length (SL) at the species (A) and community levels (B). n, number of observations. Error bars in panel (B) represent ± 1 standard error.
Best mixed models for ecological effects on stomatal density (SD) and stomatal length (SL) at the species and community levels.
| Factor | Species level | Community level | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log SDL | Log SLL | Log SLC | Log SDC | |||||||||
| Variance explained (%) | Variance explained (%) | Variance explained (%) | Variance explained (%) | |||||||||
| PFT | 4 | 2.85 | 15.3* | 4 | 56.70 | 22.8** | | |||||
| Environmental variables | ||||||||||||
| MAT | 1 | 0.51 | 5.2 | 1 | 10.15 | 5.4* | 1 | 8.16 | 36.7* | 1 | 6.12 | 35.2* |
| Soil N | 1 | 0.12 | 4.7 | | ||||||||
| Interaction terms | ||||||||||||
| PFT × MAT | 4 | 2.89 | 16.6* | | ||||||||
| PFT × Soil N | 4 | 2.62 | 17.9* | |||||||||
| MAP × Soil N | 1 | 2.14 | <0.001 | |||||||||
| Random factor | ||||||||||||
| Site | 8 | 0.46 | 0.3 | 8 | 0.19 | 0.2 | 8 | 7.99 | 30.9* | 8 | 9.57 | 45.9** |
| Residuals | 880 | 40.0 | 856 | 71.6 | 22 | 32.4 | 22 | 18.9 | ||||
PFT, plant functional type; MAT, mean annual temperature; MAP, mean annual precipitation. df, degrees of freedom. Model with the lower Akaike information criterion (AIC) value was chosen as the final model (see Supplementary Table S5). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.
Figure 7Relationships between stomatal traits and environmental variables.
SDL, SLL, SDC, and SLC are the stomatal density and length at the species and community levels, respectively. Environmental variables include mean annual temperature (MAT), mean annual precipitation (MAP), and soil N. n, number of observations. Error bars in panels (D) and (E) represent ± 1 standard error.
Figure 8Relationships between net primary productivity (NPP) and community-level stomatal density (SDC, (A)) and stomatal length (SLC, (B)).
n, number of observations. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.