Advertisement

The scaling relationship of leaf area and total mass of sample plots across world trees

Original Paper
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

The scaling relationship between leaf area and total mass of plant has important implications for understanding resource allocations in the plant. The model of West, Brown and Enquist (WBE model) considers that a 3/4 scaling exponent of metabolic rate versus total mass to be optimal for each plant and has been confirmed numerous times. Although leaf area is a better proxy of the metabolic rate than leaf mass, few studies have focused on the scaling exponent of leaf area versus total mass and even fewer have discussed the diversification of this scaling exponent across different conditions. Here, I analyzed the scaling exponent of leaf area versus total mass of sample plots across world plants. I found that as the plant grows, it allocates fewer resources to photosynthetic tissues than expected by the WBE model. The results also empirically show that this scaling exponent varies significantly for different plant leaf habit, taxonomic class and geographic region. Therefore, leaf strategy in response to environmental pressure and constraint clearly plays a significant role.

Keywords

Scaling relationship Leaf area Total mass Standard major axis regression 

References

  1. Bond-Lamberty B, Wang C, Gower S, Norman J (2002) Leaf area dynamics of a boreal black spruce fire chronosequence. Tree Physiol 22(14):993–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chojnacky D (2002) Allometric scaling theory applied to FIA biomass estimation. In: Proceedings of the third annual forest inventory and analysis symposium, North Central Research StationGoogle Scholar
  3. Coomes DA (2006) Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends Ecol Evol 21(11):593–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Coomes DA, Allen RB (2009) Testing the metabolic scaling theory of tree growth. J Ecol 97(6):1369–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Draper NR, Smith H (2014) Applied regression analysis, vol 326. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Duursma RA, Falster DS (2016) Leaf mass per area, not total leaf area, drives differences in above-ground biomass distribution among woody plant functional types. New Phytol 212(2):368–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Enquist BJ (2003) Scaling the macroecological and evolutionary implications of size and metabolism within and across plant taxa. In: Blackburn TH, Gaston KJ (eds) Macroecology: concepts and consequences. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 321–341Google Scholar
  8. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2002) Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science 295(5559):1517–1520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Enquist BJ, Economo EP, Huxman TE, Allen AP, Ignace DD, Gillooly JF (2003) Scaling metabolism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature 423(6940):639–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Falster DS, Duursma RA, Ishihara MI, Barneche DR, FitzJohn RG, Vårhammar A, Aspinwall MJ (2015) BAAD: a biomass and allometry database for woody plants. Ecology 96(5):1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harper WV (2014) reduced major axis regression Wiley StatsRef: statistics reference online. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Luo TX, Zhang L, Zhu HZ, Daly C, Li MC, Luo J (2009) Correlations between net primary productivity and foliar carbon isotope ratio across a Tibetan ecosystem transect. Ecography 32(3):526–538CrossRefGoogle 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 Lond B Biol Sci 274(1622):2109–2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Niklas KJ, Christianson ML (2011) Differences in the scaling of area and mass of Ginkgo biloba (Ginkgoaceae) leaves and their relevance to the study of specific leaf area. Am J Bot 98(8):1381–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Niklas KJ, Cobb ED, Niinemets Ü, Reich PB, Sellin A, Shipley B, Wright IJ (2007) “Diminishing returns” in the scaling of functional leaf traits across and within species groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(21):8891–8896CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Powers JS, Tiffin P (2010) Plant functional type classifications in tropical dry forests in Costa Rica: leaf habit versus taxonomic approaches. Funct Ecol 24(4):927–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Price CA, Enquist BJ (2007) Scaling mass and morphology in leaves: an extension of the WBE model. Ecology 88(5):1132–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Price CA, Enquist BJ, Savage VM (2007) A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(32):13204–13209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Price CA, Gilooly JF, Allen AP, Weitz JS, Niklas KJ (2010) The metabolic theory of ecology: prospects and challenges for plant biology. New Phytol 188(3):696–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Robinson D (2004) Scaling the depths: below-ground allocation in plants, forests and biomes. Funct Ecol 18(2):290–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang CK (2006) Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 222(1):9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Warton D, Duursma R, Falster D, Taskinen S (2015) (Standardized) Major axis estimation and testing routines. R package ‘smatr’, version 3.4-3. http://www.bitbucket.org/remkoduursma/smatr
  23. Weedon JT, Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JH, Zanne AE, Wirth C, Coomes DA (2009) Global meta-analysis of wood decomposition rates: a role for trait variation among tree species. Ecol Lett 12(1):45–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276(5309):122–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999a) The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science 284(5420):1677–1679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1999b) A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400(6745):664–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolfram Research (2017) Mathematica (version 11.1). Wolfram Research, Inc., ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  28. Xu SS, Li Y, Wang GX (2014) Scaling relationships between leaf mass and total plant mass across Chinese forests. PLoS ONE 9(4):e95938CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Zeng WS, Tang SZ (2011) A new general allometric biomass model. Nat Preced.  https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2011.6704.2 Google Scholar
  30. Zianis D (2006) Comparison between empirical and theoretical biomass allometric models and statistical implications for stem volume predictions. Forestry 79(4):477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zianis D, Mencuccini M (2004) On simplifying allometric analyses of forest biomass. For Ecol Manag 187(2–3):311–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations