Lucas Enrico1, Sandra Díaz2, Mark Westoby3, Barbara L Rice3. 1. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (CONICET-UNC) and FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CC 495, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina lenrico@com.uncor.edu. 2. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (CONICET-UNC) and FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CC 495, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina. 3. Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The influence of leaf mechanical properties on local ecosystem processes, such as trophic transfer, decomposition and nutrient cycling, has resulted in a growing interest in including leaf mechanical resistance in large-scale databases of plant functional traits. 'Specific work to shear' and 'force to tear' are two properties commonly used to describe mechanical resistance (toughness or strength) of leaves. Two methodologies have been widely used to measure them across large datasets. This study aimed to assess correlations and standardization between the two methods, as measured by two widely used apparatuses, in order to inter-convert existing data in those global datasets. METHODS: Specific work to shear (W(SS)) and force to tear (FT) were measured in leaves of 72 species from south-eastern Australia. The measurements were made including and excluding midribs. Relationships between the variables were tested by Spearman correlations and ordinary least square regressions. KEY RESULTS: A positive and significant correlation was found between the methods, but coefficients varied according to the inclusion or exclusion of the midrib in the measurements. Equations for prediction varied according to leaf venation pattern. A positive and significant (r = 0·90, P < 0·0001) correlation was also found between W(SS) values for fresh and rehydrated leaves, which is considered to be of practical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of broad-scale ecological hypotheses and used within the constraints recommended here, leaf mechanical resistance data obtained with both methodologies could be pooled together into a single coarser variable, using the equations provided in this paper. However, more detailed datasets of FT cannot be safely filled in with estimations based on W(SS), or vice versa. In addition, W(SS) values of green leaves can be predicted with good accuracy from W(SS) of rehydrated leaves of the same species.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The influence of leaf mechanical properties on local ecosystem processes, such as trophic transfer, decomposition and nutrient cycling, has resulted in a growing interest in including leaf mechanical resistance in large-scale databases of plant functional traits. 'Specific work to shear' and 'force to tear' are two properties commonly used to describe mechanical resistance (toughness or strength) of leaves. Two methodologies have been widely used to measure them across large datasets. This study aimed to assess correlations and standardization between the two methods, as measured by two widely used apparatuses, in order to inter-convert existing data in those global datasets. METHODS: Specific work to shear (W(SS)) and force to tear (FT) were measured in leaves of 72 species from south-eastern Australia. The measurements were made including and excluding midribs. Relationships between the variables were tested by Spearman correlations and ordinary least square regressions. KEY RESULTS: A positive and significant correlation was found between the methods, but coefficients varied according to the inclusion or exclusion of the midrib in the measurements. Equations for prediction varied according to leaf venation pattern. A positive and significant (r = 0·90, P < 0·0001) correlation was also found between W(SS) values for fresh and rehydrated leaves, which is considered to be of practical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of broad-scale ecological hypotheses and used within the constraints recommended here, leaf mechanical resistance data obtained with both methodologies could be pooled together into a single coarser variable, using the equations provided in this paper. However, more detailed datasets of FT cannot be safely filled in with estimations based on W(SS), or vice versa. In addition, W(SS) values of green leaves can be predicted with good accuracy from W(SS) of rehydrated leaves of the same species.
Keywords:
Comparative plant ecology; force to tear; leaf biomechanics; leaf tensile strength; leaf toughness; leaf venation; plant trait databases; specific work to shear; work to shear
Authors: Angela T Moles; Ian R Wallis; William J Foley; David I Warton; James C Stegen; Alejandro J Bisigato; Lucrecia Cella-Pizarro; Connie J Clark; Philippe S Cohen; William K Cornwell; Will Edwards; Rasmus Ejrnaes; Therany Gonzales-Ojeda; Bente J Graae; Gregory Hay; Fainess C Lumbwe; Benjamín Magaña-Rodríguez; Ben D Moore; Pablo L Peri; John R Poulsen; Ruan Veldtman; Hugo von Zeipel; Nigel R Andrew; Sarah L Boulter; Elizabeth T Borer; Florencia Fernández Campón; Moshe Coll; Alejandro G Farji-Brener; Jane De Gabriel; Enrique Jurado; Line A Kyhn; Bill Low; Christa P H Mulder; Kathryn Reardon-Smith; Jorge Rodríguez-Velázquez; Eric W Seabloom; Peter A Vesk; An van Cauter; Matthew S Waldram; Zheng Zheng; Pedro G Blendinger; Brian J Enquist; Jose M Facelli; Tiffany Knight; Jonathan D Majer; Miguel Martínez-Ramos; Peter McQuillan; Lynda D Prior Journal: New Phytol Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 10.151
Authors: Yusuke Onoda; Mark Westoby; Peter B Adler; Amy M F Choong; Fiona J Clissold; Johannes H C Cornelissen; Sandra Díaz; Nathaniel J Dominy; Alison Elgart; Lucas Enrico; Paul V A Fine; Jerome J Howard; Adel Jalili; Kaoru Kitajima; Hiroko Kurokawa; Clare McArthur; Peter W Lucas; Lars Markesteijn; Natalia Pérez-Harguindeguy; Lourens Poorter; Lora Richards; Louis S Santiago; Enio E Sosinski; Sunshine A Van Bael; David I Warton; Ian J Wright; S Joseph Wright; Nayuta Yamashita Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: Jared W Westbrook; Kaoru Kitajima; J Gordon Burleigh; W John Kress; David L Erickson; S Joseph Wright Journal: Am Nat Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.926