| Literature DB >> 32542660 |
Mengying Zhong1,2, Bruno E L Cerabolini3, Pilar Castro-Díez4, Jean-Philippe Puyravaud5, Johannes H C Cornelissen1.
Abstract
Leaf stomatal density is known to co-vary with leaf vein density. However, the functional underpinning of this relation, and how it scales to whole-plant water transport anatomy, is still unresolved. We hypn>othesized that the balance ofEntities:
Keywords: individual stomatal area; individual vessel area; minor vessel number; stomatal number; total stomatal area; xylem cross-sectional area
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32542660 PMCID: PMC7496827 DOI: 10.1111/pce.13826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Cell Environ ISSN: 0140-7791 Impact factor: 7.228
FIGURE 1Conceptual framework of this research concerning allometric relations of plant hydraulics across woody species [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 2Size co‐variation of stomata and xylem at the whole‐plant level, across seedlings of 53 European woody species varying in leaf habit, growth form and relative growth rate. (a) Convergent scaling of plant total stomatal area and stem xylem transect area. (b) Convergent scaling of plant total stomatal area and stem xylem conductance area. Lines indicate significant scaling relationships. Growth forms: T, tree; S, shrub; SS, sub‐shrub; C + Sc, scrambler or climber. Regression coefficients of standardized major axis are documented in Table 1 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 3Convergent scaling of leaf total stomatal area and midvein xylem transect area, across seedlings of 53 European woody species varying in leaf habit, growth form and relative growth rate. The line indicates significant scaling relationship. Growth forms: T, tree; S, shrub; SS, sub‐shrub; C + Sc, scrambler or climber. Regression coefficients of standardized major axis are documented in Table 1 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Ln–Ln scaling relationships were analyzed with SMA regression analyses, with additional reference to the contributions of different growth forms, leaf habits and RGRs to these relationships
| Model | Intercept (95% CI) | Slope (95% CI) |
| Slope. test = 1, |
|
|
| Figures | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slope homogeneity | Elevation homogeneity | Slope homogeneity | Elevation homogeneity | |||||||
| Plant total stomatal area – stem xylem area | 2.52 (0.50, 4.55) | 1.29 (1.14, 1.47) | .81*** | .51*** | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Figure |
| Plant total stomatal area – stem xylem conductance area | 3.76 (1.70,5.82) | 1.22 (1.06, 1.41) | .77*** | .39** | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Figure |
| Leaf total stomatal area – midvein xylem area | 4.78 (3.16, 6.39) | 1.30 (1.13, 1.49) | .79*** | .50*** | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Figure |
| Leaf total stomatal number – midvein xylem area | −1.48 (−3.09, 0.13) | 1.32 (1.16, 1.51) | .79*** | .53*** | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns | Figure |
| Leaf total stomatal number – average leaf area | 5.38 (5.02, 5.74) | 0.97 (0.91, 1.04) | .94*** | −.12, Ns | Ns | Ns | ** | — | Ns | |
| Stomatal cell area – midvein xylem area | 8.08 (7.47, 8.68) | −0.22 (−0.30, 0.17) | .01, ns | — | — | — | — | — | — | Figure |
| Stomatal cell area – average leaf area | 6.93 (6.66, 7.20) | −0.16 (−0.22,‐0.13) | .006, ns | — | — | — | — | – | — | |
| Plant minor vessel number – stem xylem area | −2.73 (−3.86, −1.61) | 0.88 (0.79, 0.98) | .87*** | — | Ns | ** | Ns | ** | ** | Figure |
| Plant minor vessel number – total leaf area | 3.17 (2.24, 4.10) | 0.69 (0.57, 0.83) | .62*** | — | Ns | ** | Ns | Ns | ** | |
| Minor vessel area – stem xylem area | 4.91 (4.08, 5.74) | −0.23 (−0.31, −0.17) | .003, ns | — | — | — | — | — | — | Figure |
| Minor vessel area – total leaf area | 3.46 (3.04, 3.88) | −0.19 (−0.25, −0.14) | .01, ns | — | — | – | — | — | — | |
| Plant total stomatal number – plant minor vessel number | 0.19 (−2.10, 2.47) | 1.51 (1.25, 1.82) | .62*** | — | Ns | Ns | Ns | — | Ns | Figure |
| Stomatal cell area – minor vessel area | 3.48 (2.71, 4.24) | 1.22 (0.91, 1.62) | .05, ns | — | — | — | — | — | — | Figure |
Note: Y‐intercept and slopes as well as slope homogeneity with 1 are reported for pairwise relationships with significant results. 95% confidence intervals (CI) are in parentheses. Growth‐form: T, tree; S, shrub; SS, sub‐shrub; C + Sc, scrambler or climber; Leaf‐habit: D, deciduous; E, evergreen; Y/X – RGR, SMA regression of Y/X (ratio of Y values to X values) and RGR.
Abbreviations: Ns, not significant; RGRs, relative growth rates; SMA, standardized major axis.
***p < .001; **p < .05.
FIGURE 4(a) Co‐variation of leaf total stomatal number and midvein xylem area (or average leaf area, insert). (b) Relationship between average stomatal area and midvein xylem area (or average leaf area, insert). (c) Co‐variation of plant total stomatal number and stem xylem area (or total leaf area, insert). (d) Relationship between minor vessel area and stem xylem area (or total leaf area, insert). Lines indicate significant scaling relationships. Growth forms: T, tree; S, shrub; SS, sub‐shrub; C + Sc, scrambler or climber. Regression coefficients of standardized major axis are documented in Table 1 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 5(a) Co‐variation of plant total stomatal number and plant minor vessel number. (b) Relation between average stomatal area and average minor vessel area. The line indicates significant scaling relationship. Growth forms: T, tree; S, shrub; SS, sub‐shrub; C + Sc, scrambler or climber. Regression coefficients of standardized major axis are documented in Table 1 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]