Scaling relationships between leaf petiole and lamina size of two Photinia species

References

• Aasamaa K, Niinemets U, Sõber A. 2005. Leaf hydraulic conductance in relation to anatomical and functional traits during Populus tremula leaf ontogeny. Tree Physiol. 25(11):1409–1418. doi: 10.1093/treephys/25.11.1409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerly DD, Knight CA, Weiss SB, Barton K, Starmer KP. 2002. Leaf size, specific leaf area and microhabitat distribution of chaparral woody plants: contrasting patterns in species level and community level analyses. Oecologia. 130(3):449–457. doi: 10.1007/s004420100805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baird AS, Taylor SH, Pasquet-Kok J, Vuong C, Zhang Y, Watcharamongkol T, Scoffoni C, Edwards EJ, Christin PA, Osborne CP, et al. 2021. Developmental and biophysical determinants of grass leaf size worldwide. Nature. 592(7853):242–247. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03370-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA. 1985. Resource limitation in plants−an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 16(1):363–392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.002051.
   Google Scholar
• Bragg JG, Westoby M. 2002. Leaf size and foraging for light in a sclerophyll woodland. Funct Ecol. 16(5):633–639. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00661.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodribb TJ, Feild TS, Jordan GJ. 2007. Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiol. 144(4):1890–1898. doi: 10.1104/pp.107.101352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall doi: 10.1201/9780429246593.
   Google Scholar
• Jiao Y, Niklas KJ, Wang L, Yu K, Li Y, Shi P. 2022. Influence of leaf age on the scaling relationships of lamina mass vs. area. Front Plant Sci. 13:860206. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.860206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji M, Jin G, Liu Z. 2021. Effects of ontogenetic stage and leaf age on leaf functional traits and the relationships between traits in Pinus koraiensis. J For Res. 32(6):2459–2471. doi: 10.1007/s11676-021-01308-w.
   Google Scholar
• Kaneko Y, Homma K. 2006. Differences in the allocation patterns between liana and shrub Hydrangea species. Plant Spec Biol. 21(3):147–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-1984.2006.00160.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Shi P, Niinemets Ü, Song Y, Yu K, Schrader J, Niklas KJ. 2022. Diminishing returns among lamina fresh and dry mass, surface area, and petiole fresh mass among nine Lauraceae species. Am J Bot. 109(3):377–392. doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li G, Yang D, Sun S. 2008. Allometric relationships between lamina area, lamina mass and petiole mass of 93 temperate woody species vary with leaf habit, leaf form and altitude. Funct Ecol. 22(4):557–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01407.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk CH. 2019. Leaf functional trait variation in a humid temperate forest, and relationships with juvenile tree light requirements. Peer J. 7:e6855. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk CH, Clearwater MJ, Laughlin DC, Harrison SP, Prentice IC, Nordenstahl M, Smith B. 2018. Frost and leaf-size gradients in forests: global patterns and experimental evidence. New Phytol. 219(2):565–573. doi: 10.1111/nph.15202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk CH, Grierson ERP, Laughlin DC. 2019. Large leaves in warm, moist environments confer an advantage in seedling light interception efficiency. New Phytol. 223(3):1319–1327. doi: 10.1111/nph.15849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElwain JC, Yiotis C, Lawson T. 2016. Using modern plant trait relationships between observed and theoretical maximum stomatal conductance and vein density to examine patterns of plant macroevolution. New Phytol. 209(1):94–103. doi: 10.1111/nph.13579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milla R, Reich PB. 2007. The scaling of leaf area and mass: the cost of light interception increases with leaf size. Proc Roy Soc Biol Sci. 274(1622):2109–2114. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moles AT, Westoby M. 2000. Do small leaves expand faster than large leaves, and do shorter expansion times reduce herbivore damage? Oikos. 90(3):517–524. doi: 10.1034/J.1600-0706.2000.900310.X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro T, El Oualidi J, Taleb MS, Pascual V, Cabezudo B, Milla R. 2010. Leaf patterns, leaf size and ecologically related traits in high Mediterranean mountain on the Moroccan High Atlas. Plant Ecol. 210(2):275–290. doi: 10.1007/s11258-010-9756-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niinemets Ü, Kull O. 1999. Biomass investment in leaf lamina versus lamina support in relation to growth irradiance and leaf size in temperate deciduous trees. Tree Physiol. 19(6):349–358. doi: 10.1093/treephys/19.6.349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tena D, Tobias M, Matesanz S, Valladares F. 2007. Do we underestimate the importance of leaf size in plant economics? Disproportional scaling of support costs within the spectrum of leaf physiognomy. Ann Bot. 100(2):283–303. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tobias M. 2006. Leaf size modifies support biomass distribution among stems, petioles and mid-ribs in temperate plants. New Phytol. 171(1):91–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01741.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tobias M. 2007. Leaf shape and venation pattern alter the support investments within leaf lamina in temperate species: a neglected source of leaf physiological differentiation? Funct Ecol. 21(1):28–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01221.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1991. The elastic moduli and mechanics of Populus tremuloides (Salicaceae) petioles in bending and torsion. Am J Bot. 78(7):989–996. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1991.tb14503.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1992. Petiole mechanics, light interception by lamina, and economy in design. Oecologia. 90(4):518–526. doi: 10.1007/BF01875445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1993. Testing “economy in design” in plants: are the petioles and rachises of leaves “designed” according to the principle of uniform strength? Ann Bot. 71(1):33–41. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1993.1004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1994. Plant allometry: the scaling of form and process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1998. Effects of vibration on mechanical properties and biomass allocation pattern of Capsella bursa-pastoris (Cruciferae). Ann Bot. 82(2):147–156. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1998.0658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ. 1999. A mechanical perspective on foliage leaf form and function. New Phytol. 143(1):19–31. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00441.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niklas KJ, Enquist BJ. 2002. On the vegetative biomass partitioning of seed plant leaves, stems, and roots. Am Nat. 159(5):482–497. doi: 10.1086/339459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkhurst DF, Duncan PR, Gates DM, Kreith F. 1968. Wind-tunnel modelling of convection of heat between air and broad leaves of plants. Agric Meteorol. 5(1):33–47. doi: 10.1016/0002-1571(68)90021-6.
   Google Scholar
• Parkhurst DF, Loucks OL. 1972. Optimal leaf size in relation to environment. J Ecol. 60(2):505–537. doi: 10.2307/2258359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearcy RW, Muraoka H, Valladares F. 2005. Crown architecture in sun and shade environments: assessing function and trade-offs with a three-dimensional simulation model. New Phytol. 166(3):791–800. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01328.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearcy RW, Yang W. 1998. The functional morphology of light capture and carbon gain in the redwood forest understorey plant Adenocaulon bicolor Hook. Funct Ecol. 12(4):543–552. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00234.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickup M, Westoby M, Basden A. 2005. Dry mass costs of deploying leaf area in relation to leaf size. Funct Ecol. 19(1):88–97. doi: 10.1111/j.0269-8463.2005.00927.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L. 2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol. 193(1):30–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2022. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Australia): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; [accessed 2022 Jun 1]. https://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Sack L, Scoffoni C. 2013. Leaf venation: structure, function, development, evolution, ecology and applications in the past, present and future. New Phytol. 198(4):983–1000. doi: 10.1111/nph.12253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sack L, Scoffoni C, McKown AD, Frole K, Rawls M, Havran JC, Tran H, Tran T. 2012. Developmentally based scaling of leaf venation architecture explains global ecological patterns. Nat Commun. 3:837. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu HS, Shi P, Kuang X, Xue F, Ge F. 2011. Applications of the bootstrap to insect physiology. Fla Entomol. 94(4):1036–1041. doi: 10.1653/024.094.0442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi P, Gielis J, Quinn BK, Niklas KJ, Ratkowsky DA, Schrader J, Ruan H, Wang L, Niinemets Ü. 2022a. ‘biogeom’: an R package for simulating and fitting natural shapes. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1516(1):123–134. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi P, Miao Q, Niinemets Ü, Liu M, Li Y, Yu K, Niklas KJ. 2022b. Scaling relationships of leaf vein and areole traits versus leaf size for nine Magnoliaceae species differing in venation density. Am J Bot. 109(6):899–909. doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi P, Ratkowsky DA, Li Y, Zhang L, Lin S, Gielis J. 2018. A general leaf area geometric formula exists for plants—evidence from the simplified Gielis equation. Forests. 9(11):714. doi: 10.3390/f9110714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su J, Niklas KJ, Huang W, Yu X, Yang Y, Shi P. 2019. Lamina shape does not correlate with lamina surface area: an analysis based on the simplified Gielis equation. Global Ecol Conserv. 19:e00666. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takenaka A. 1994. Effects of leaf blade narrowness and petiole length on the light capture efficiency of a shoot. Ecol Res. 9(2):109–114. doi: 10.1007/BF02347485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornley JHM. 1972. A balanced quantitative model for root: shoot ratios in vegetative plants. Ann Bot. 36(2):431–441. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084602.
   Google Scholar
• Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ. 2002. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 33(1):125–159. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150452.
   Google Scholar
• Westoby M, Wright IJ. 2003. The leaf size−twig size spectrum and its relationship to other important spectra of variation among species. Oecologia. 135(4):621–628. doi: 10.1007/s00442-003-1231-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright IJ, Dong N, Maire V, Prentice IC, Westoby M, Díaz S, Gallagher RV, Jacobs BF, Kooyman R, Law EA et al. 2017. Global climatic drivers of leaf size. Science. 357(6354):917–921. doi: 10.1126/science.aal4760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng X, Niklas KJ, Ratkowsky DA, Jiao Y, Ding H, Shi P. 2022. Comparison of leaf shape between a Photinia hybrid and one of its parents. Plants. 11(18):2370. doi: 10.3390/plants11182370.
   Google Scholar