CBNPMP

Portail documentaire

Accueil

Aide à la connexion

Accès réservé CBNPMP

Mot de passe oublié ?

Adresse

CBNPMP
Vallon de Salut
65200 Bagnères-de-Bigorre
France
05.62.95.85.30
contact

Nouvelle recherche

Article: Imprimé

Specific leaf area and dry matter content estimate thickness in laminar leaves / Denis Vile in Annals of Botany, 96 (2005)

Article (2005)

[article]
inAnnals of Botany > 96 (2005) . - 1129-1136

Titre :	Specific leaf area and dry matter content estimate thickness in laminar leaves
Type de document :	Imprimé
Auteurs :	Denis Vile (1977-) ; Eric Garnier (1959-) ; Bill Shipley (1960-) ; Gérard Laurent ; Marie-Laure Navas ; Catherine Roumet ; Sandra Lavorel (1965-) ; Sandra Díaz ; John Gavin Hodgson (1945-) ; Francisco Lloret ; Guy F. Midgley ; Hendrik Poorter ; Mike C. Rutherford ; Peter J. Wilson ; Ian J. Wright
Année de publication :	2005
Article en page(s) :	1129-1136
Langues :	Français (fre)
Catégories :	[CBNPMP-Thématique] Revégétalisation
Résumé :	Background and Aims Leaf thickness plays an important role in leaf and plant functioning, and relates to a species' strategy of resource acquisition and use. As such, it has been widely used for screening purposes in crop science and community ecology. However, since its measurement is not straightforward, a number of estimates have been proposed. Here, the validity of the (SLA × LDMC)−1 product is tested to estimate leaf thickness, where SLA is the specific leaf area (leaf area/dry mass) and LDMC is the leaf dry matter content (leaf dry mass/fresh mass). SLA and LDMC are two leaf traits that are both more easily measurable and often reported in the literature. Methods The relationship between leaf thickness (LT) and (SLA × LDMC)−1 was tested in two analyses of covariance using 11 datasets (three original and eight published) for a total number of 1039 data points, corresponding to a wide range of growth forms growing in contrasted environments in four continents. Key Results and Conclusions The overall slope and intercept of the relationship were not significantly different from one and zero, respectively, and the residual standard error was 0·11. Only two of the eight datasets displayed a significant difference in the intercepts, and the only significant difference among the most represented growth forms was for trees. LT can therefore be estimated by (SLA × LDMC)−1, allowing leaf thickness to be derived from easily and widely measured leaf traits.
Lien pérenne :	DOI : 10.1093/aob/mci264
Permalink :	https://biblio.cbnpmp.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=150726

Documents numériques

Article (2005) - URL

Article (2005)

URL