Advertisement

Trees

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Leaf area–length allometry and its implications in leaf shape evolution

  • Peijian Shi
  • Mengdi Liu
  • David A. Ratkowsky
  • Johan Gielis
  • Jialu Su
  • Xiaojing Yu
  • Ping Wang
  • Lifang Zhang
  • Zhiyi Lin
  • Julian SchraderEmail author
Original Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Key message

Leaf area is proportional to the product of leaf length and width both for herbaceous and woody plants. The coefficient of proportionality falls into the range (1/2, π/4) for the investigated species.

Abstract

According to Thompson’s principle of similarity, the area of an object should be proportional to its length squared. However, leaf area–length data of some plants have been demonstrated not to follow the principle of similarity. We explore the reasons why the leaf area–length allometry deviates from the principle of similarity and examine whether there is a general model describing the relationship among leaf area, width and length. We sampled more than 11,800 leaves from six classes of woody and herbaceous plants and tested the leaf area–length allometry. We compared six mathematical models based on root-mean-square error as the measure of goodness-of-fit. The best supported model described a proportional relationship between leaf area and the product of leaf width and length (i.e., the Montgomery model). We found that the extent to which the leaf area–length allometry deviates from the principle of similarity depends upon the extent of variation of the ratio of leaf width to length. Estimates of the parameter of the Montgomery model ranged between 1/2, which corresponds to a triangular leaf with leaf length as its height and leaf width as its base, and π/4, which corresponds to an elliptical leaf with leaf length as its major axis and leaf width as its minor axis, for the six classes of plants. The narrow range in practice of the Montgomery parameter implies an evolutionary stability for the leaf area of large-leaved plants despite the fact that leaf shapes of these plants are rather different.

Keywords

Allometry Montgomery model Leaf area Leaf dimension Thompson’s principle of similarity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Robert D. Guy, the Communicating Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments on the earlier version of this manuscript. We thank Liang Cheng, Yanming Fang, Shuyan Lin and Xiao Zheng for their help during the leaf collection. This work was nominally financially supported the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

468_2019_1843_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 53 KB)

References

  1. Coen E, Rolland-Lagan A-G, Mathews M, Bangham JA, Prusinkiewicz P (2004) The genetics of geometry. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:4728–4735.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0306308101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Swart EAM, Groenwold R, Kanne HJ, Stam P, Marcelis LFM, Voorrips RE (2004) Non-destructive estimation of leaf area for different plant ages and accessions of Capsicum annuum L. J Hortic Sci Biotech 79:764–770.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2004.11511840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dornbusch T, Watt J, Baccar R, Fournier C, Andrieu B (2011) A comparative analysis of leaf shape of wheat, barley and maize using an empirical shape model. Ann Bot 107:865–873.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang YM (1994) Geographical distribution and spatial pattern of Liriodendron chinense (Hemsl.) Sarg. J Nanjing For Univ 18(2):13–18 (in Chinese with English Abstract) Google Scholar
  6. Gielis J (2003) A generic geometric transformation that unifies a wide range of natural and abstract shapes. Am J Bot 90:333–338.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.90.3.333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffith DM, Quigley KM, Anderson TM (2016) Leaf thickness controls variation in leaf mass per area (LMA) among grazing-adapted grasses in Serengeti. Physiol Ecol 181:1035–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3632-3 Google Scholar
  8. Jani TC, Misra DK (1966) Leaf area estimation by linear measurements in Ricinus communis. Nature 212:741–742.  https://doi.org/10.1038/212741b0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumar V, DiTommaso A (2005) Mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum): an increasingly problematic invasive species. Weed Technol 19:1071–1077.  https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-177R.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 22:557–564.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01407.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin S, Zhang L, Reddy GVP, Hui C, Gielis J, Ding Y, Shi P (2016) A geometrical model for testing bilateral symmetry of bamboo leaf with a simplified Gielis equation. Ecol Evol 6:6798–6806.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin S, Shao L, Hui C, Song Y, Reddy GVP, Gielis J, Li F, Ding Y, Wei Q, Shi P (2018) Why does not the leaf weight-area allometry of bamboos follow the 3/2-power law? Front Plant Sci 9:583.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milla R, Reich PB (2007) The scaling of leaf area and mass: the cost of light interception increases with leaf size. Proc R Soc B 274:2109–2114.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Montgomery EG (1911) Correlation studies in corn. In: Annual Report no. 24. Agricultural Experimental Station, Lincoln, NB, pp 108–159Google Scholar
  15. O’Shea B, Mordue-Luntz AJ, Fryer RJ, Pert CC, Bricknell IR (2006) Determination of the surface area of a fish. J Fish Dis 29:437–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2006.00728.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palaniswamy KM, Gomez KA (1974) Length-width method for estimating leaf area of rice. Agron J 66:430–433.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1974.00021962006600030027x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  18. Runions A, Tsiantis M, Prusinkiewicz P (2017) A common developmental program can produce diverse leaf shapes. New Phytol 216:401–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandhu HS, Shi PJ, Kuang XJ, Xue FS, Ge F (2011) Applications of the bootstrap to insect physiology. Fla Entomol 94:1036–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1653/024.094.0442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shi PJ, Liu MD (2019) Taylor’s power law of the leaf bilateral symmetry measure of Liriodendron trees. J Nanjing For Univ 43, in press.  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201808022 (in Chinese with English Abstract)
  21. Shi PJ, Huang JG, Hui C, Grissino-Mayer HD, Tardif J, Zhai LH, Wang FS, Li BL (2015a) Capturing spiral radial growth of conifers using the superellipse to model tree-ring geometric shape. Front Plant Sci 6:856.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00856 Google Scholar
  22. Shi PJ, Xu Q, Sandhu HS, Gielis J, Ding YL, Li HR, Dong XB (2015b) Comparison of dwarf bamboos (Indocalamus sp.) leaf parameters to determine relationship between spatial density of plants and total leaf area per plant. Ecol Evol 5:4578–4589.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shi PJ, Ratkowsky DA, Wang NT, Li Y, Reddy GVP, Zhao L, Li B-L (2017) Comparison of five methods for parameter estimation under Taylor’s power law. Ecol Complex 32:121–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2017.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi PJ, Ratkowsky DA, Li Y, Zhang LF, Lin SY, Gielis J (2018a) General leaf-area geometric formula exists for plants—evidence from the simplified Gielis equation. Forests 9:714.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shi PJ, Zheng X, Ratkowsky DA, Li Y, Wang P, Cheng L (2018b) A simple method for measuring the bilateral symmetry of leaves. Symmetry 10:118.  https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10040118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shi PJ, Liu MD, Yu XJ, Gielis J, Ratkowsky DA (2019) Proportional relationship between leaf area and the product of leaf length width of four types of special leaf shapes. Forests 10:178.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sicard A, Thamm A, Marona C, Lee YW, Wahl V et al (2014) Repeated evolutionary changes of leaf morphology caused by mutations to a homeobox gene. Curr Biol 24:1880–1886.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sun J, Fan R, Niklas KJ, Zhong Q, Yang F, Li M, Chen X, Sun M, Cheng D (2017) “Diminishing returns” in the scaling of leaf area vs. dry mass in Wuyi Mountain bamboos, Southeast China. Am J Bot 104:993–998.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1700068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson DW (1917) On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Verwijst T, Wen DZ (1996) Leaf allometry of Salix viminalis during the first growing season. Tree Physiol 16:655–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vlad D, Kierzkowki D, Rast MI, Vuolo F, Dello Ioio R, Galinha C et al (2014) Leaf shape evolution through duplication, regulatory diversification, and loss of a homeobox gene. Science 343:780–783.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Westoby M (1998) A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199:213–227.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004327224729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Witkowski ETF, Lamont BB (1991) Leaf specific mass confounds leaf density and thickness. Oecologia 88:86–493.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yano S, Terashima I (2004) Developmental process of sun and shade leaves in Chenopodium album L. Plant Cell Environ 27:781–793.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2004.01182.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang L, Yang J, Huang Y, Jia Z, Fang Y (2018) Leaf venation variation and phenotypic plasticity in response to environmental heterogeneity in Parrotia subaequalis (H. T. Chang) R. M. Hao et H. T. Wei, an endemic and endangered tree species from China. Forests 9:247.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Co-Innovation Centre for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Bamboo Research Institute, College of Biology and the EnvironmentNanjing Forestry UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Tasmanian Institute of AgricultureUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biosciences EngineeringUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Biodiversity, Macroecology and BiogeographyUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations