John G Hodgson1,2, Bianca A Santini3,4, Gabriel Montserrat Marti5, Ferran Royo Pla6, Glynis Jones7, Amy Bogaard8, Mike Charles8, Xavier Font9, Mohammed Ater10, Abdelkader Taleb11, Peter Poschlod12, Younes Hmimsa10, Carol Palmer7, Peter J Wilson13, Stuart R Band13, Amy Styring8, Charlotte Diffey8, Laura Green8, Erika Nitsch8, Elizabeth Stroud8, Angel Romo-Díez14, Lluis de Torres Espuny6, Gemma Warham7. 1. Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology, The University, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK. 2. Department of Archaeology, The University, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. 3. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. 4. Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, C.P. 04500, Mexico. 5. Dept. Ecología Funcional y Biodiversidad, Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología (CSIC) Aptdo. 202, 30080 Zaragoza, Spain. 6. Grup de Recerca Científica 'Terres de l'Ebre', C/ Rosa Maria Molas, 25 A, 2n B, 43500 Tortosa, Spain. 7. Department of Archaeology, The University, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. 8. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK. 9. Department of Plant Biology, University of Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. 10. Laboratoire Diversité et Conservation des Systèmes Biologiques (LDICOSYB), Département de Biologie, Faculté des Sciences de Tétouan, Université Abdelmalek Essaâdi, BP 2062, 93030, Tétouan, Morocco. 11. Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco. 12. Institute of Botany, Faculty of Biology and Preclinical Medicine, University of Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany. 13. Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology, The University, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK. 14. Institut Botànic de Barcelona, Parc Montjuïc, Av. dels Muntanyans s/n, 08038 Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
Background and Aims: While the 'worldwide leaf economics spectrum' (Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, et al. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature : 821-827) defines mineral nutrient relationships in plants, no unifying functional consensus links size attributes. Here, the focus is upon leaf size, a much-studied plant trait that scales positively with habitat quality and components of plant size. The objective is to show that this wide range of relationships is explicable in terms of a seed-phytomer-leaf (SPL) theoretical model defining leaf size in terms of trade-offs involving the size, growth rate and number of the building blocks (phytomers) of which the young shoot is constructed. Methods: Functional data for 2400+ species and English and Spanish vegetation surveys were used to explore interrelationships between leaf area, leaf width, canopy height, seed mass and leaf dry matter content (LDMC). Key Results: Leaf area was a consistent function of canopy height, LDMC and seed mass. Additionally, size traits are partially uncoupled. First, broad laminas help confer competitive exclusion while morphologically large leaves can, through dissection, be functionally small. Secondly, leaf size scales positively with plant size but many of the largest-leaved species are of medium height with basally supported leaves. Thirdly, photosynthetic stems may represent a functionally viable alternative to 'small seeds + large leaves' in disturbed, fertile habitats and 'large seeds + small leaves' in infertile ones. Conclusions: Although key elements defining the juvenile growth phase remain unmeasured, our results broadly support SPL theory in that phytometer and leaf size are a product of the size of the initial shoot meristem (≅ seed mass) and the duration and quality of juvenile growth. These allometrically constrained traits combine to confer ecological specialization on individual species. Equally, they appear conservatively expressed within major taxa. Thus, 'evolutionary canalization' sensu Stebbins (Stebbins GL. 1974. Flowering plants: evolution above the species level . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press) is perhaps associated with both seed and leaf development, and major taxa appear routinely specialized with respect to ecologically important size-related traits.
Background and Aims: While the 'worldwide leaf economics spectrum' (Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, et al. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature : 821-827) defines mineral nutrient relationships in plants, no unifying functional consensus links size attributes. Here, the focus is upon leaf size, a much-studied plant trait that scales positively with habitat quality and components of plant size. The objective is to show that this wide range of relationships is explicable in terms of a seed-phytomer-leaf (SPL) theoretical model defining leaf size in terms of trade-offs involving the size, growth rate and number of the building blocks (phytomers) of which the young shoot is constructed. Methods: Functional data for 2400+ species and English and Spanish vegetation surveys were used to explore interrelationships between leaf area, leaf width, canopy height, seed mass and leaf dry matter content (LDMC). Key Results: Leaf area was a consistent function of canopy height, LDMC and seed mass. Additionally, size traits are partially uncoupled. First, broad laminas help confer competitive exclusion while morphologically large leaves can, through dissection, be functionally small. Secondly, leaf size scales positively with plant size but many of the largest-leaved species are of medium height with basally supported leaves. Thirdly, photosynthetic stems may represent a functionally viable alternative to 'small seeds + large leaves' in disturbed, fertile habitats and 'large seeds + small leaves' in infertile ones. Conclusions: Although key elements defining the juvenile growth phase remain unmeasured, our results broadly support SPL theory in that phytometer and leaf size are a product of the size of the initial shoot meristem (≅ seed mass) and the duration and quality of juvenile growth. These allometrically constrained traits combine to confer ecological specialization on individual species. Equally, they appear conservatively expressed within major taxa. Thus, 'evolutionary canalization' sensu Stebbins (Stebbins GL. 1974. Flowering plants: evolution above the species level . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press) is perhaps associated with both seed and leaf development, and major taxa appear routinely specialized with respect to ecologically important size-related traits.
Authors: John J Wiens; David D Ackerly; Andrew P Allen; Brian L Anacker; Lauren B Buckley; Howard V Cornell; Ellen I Damschen; T Jonathan Davies; John-Arvid Grytnes; Susan P Harrison; Bradford A Hawkins; Robert D Holt; Christy M McCain; Patrick R Stephens Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: Sandra Díaz; Jens Kattge; Johannes H C Cornelissen; Ian J Wright; Sandra Lavorel; Stéphane Dray; Björn Reu; Michael Kleyer; Christian Wirth; I Colin Prentice; Eric Garnier; Gerhard Bönisch; Mark Westoby; Hendrik Poorter; Peter B Reich; Angela T Moles; John Dickie; Andrew N Gillison; Amy E Zanne; Jérôme Chave; S Joseph Wright; Serge N Sheremet'ev; Hervé Jactel; Christopher Baraloto; Bruno Cerabolini; Simon Pierce; Bill Shipley; Donald Kirkup; Fernando Casanoves; Julia S Joswig; Angela Günther; Valeria Falczuk; Nadja Rüger; Miguel D Mahecha; Lucas D Gorné Journal: Nature Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bill Shipley; Francesco De Bello; J Hans C Cornelissen; Etienne Laliberté; Daniel C Laughlin; Peter B Reich Journal: Oecologia Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Angela T Moles; David D Ackerly; Campbell O Webb; John C Tweddle; John B Dickie; Andy J Pitman; Mark Westoby Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John G Hodgson; Gabriel Montserrat Marti; Bozena Šerá; Glynis Jones; Amy Bogaard; Mike Charles; Xavier Font; Mohammed Ater; Abdelkader Taleb; Bianca A Santini; Younes Hmimsa; Carol Palmer; Peter J Wilson; Stuart R Band; Amy Styring; Charlotte Diffey; Laura Green; Erika Nitsch; Elizabeth Stroud; Gemma Warham Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 4.357