English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/76876
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Is leaf dry matter content a better predictor of soil fertility than specific leaf area?

AuthorsHodgson, J. G.; Montserrat-Martí, Gabriel ; Charles, M.; Jones, G.; Wilson, P.; Shipley, B.; Sharafi, M.; Cerabolini, B. E. L.; Cornelissen, J. H. C.; Band, S. R.; Bogard, A.; Castro-Díez, Pilar; Guerrero Campo, Joaquín; Palmer, C.; Pérez-Rontomé, Carmen ; Carter, G.; Hynd, A.; Romo, Àngel ; Torres Espuny, L. de; Royo Pla, F.
KeywordsEllenberg numbers
Functional traits
Leaf density
Leaf nitrogen
Leaf size
Leaf thickness
Relative growth rate (RGR)
Shade tolerance
Variation in trait expression
Issue Date2011
PublisherOxford University Press
CitationAnnals of Botany 108: 1337- 1345 (2011)
AbstractBackground and Aims: Specific leaf area (SLA), a key element of the ‘worldwide leaf economics spectrum’, is the preferred ‘soft’ plant trait for assessing soil fertility. SLA is a function of leaf dry matter content (LDMC) and leaf thickness (LT). The first, LDMC, defines leaf construction costs and can be used instead of SLA. However, LT identifies shade at its lowest extreme and succulence at its highest, and is not related to soil fertility. Why then is SLA more frequently used as a predictor of soil fertility than LDMC? Methods: SLA, LDMC and LT were measured and leaf density (LD) estimated for almost 2000 species, and the capacity of LD to predict LDMC was examined, as was the relative contribution of LDMC and LT to the expression of SLA. Subsequently, the relationships between SLA, LDMC and LT with respect to soil fertility and shade were described. Key Results: Although LD is strongly related to LDMC, and LDMC and LT each contribute equally to the expression of SLA, the exact relationships differ between ecological groupings. LDMC predicts leaf nitrogen content and soil fertility but, because LT primarily varies with light intensity, SLA increases in response to both increased shade and increased fertility. Conclusions: Gradients of soil fertility are frequently also gradients of biomass accumulation with reduced irradiance lower in the canopy. Therefore, SLA, which includes both fertility and shade components, may often discriminate better between communities or treatments than LDMC. However, LDMC should always be the preferred trait for assessing gradients of soil fertility uncoupled from shade. Nevertheless, because leaves multitask, individual leaf traits do not necessarily exhibit exact functional equivalence between species. In consequence, rather than using a single stand-alone predictor, multivariate analyses using several leaf traits is recommended.
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/76876
DOI10.1093/aob/mcr225
ISSN0305-7364
Appears in Collections:(EEAD) Artículos
(IBB) Artículos
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show full item record
Review this work
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.