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

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. Leaf area dynamics of a boreal black spruce fire chronosequence. Tree Physiol, 2002, 22(14): 993-1002.

[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 Station

[3] Coomes DA. Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends Ecol Evol, 2006, 21(11): 593-596.

[4] Coomes DA, Allen RB. Testing the metabolic scaling theory of tree growth. J Ecol, 2009, 97(6): 1369-1373.

[5] Draper NR, Smith H. Applied regression analysis, 2014, New York: Wiley.

[6] Duursma RA, Falster DS. Leaf mass per area, not total leaf area, drives differences in above-ground biomass distribution among woody plant functional types. New Phytol, 2016, 212(2): 368-376.

[7] Enquist BJ. Blackburn TH, Gaston KJ. Scaling the macroecological and evolutionary implications of size and metabolism within and across plant taxa. Macroecology: concepts and consequences, 2003, Oxford: Blackwell 321 341

[8] Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science, 2002, 295(5559): 1517-1520.

[9] Enquist BJ, Economo EP, Huxman TE, Allen AP, Ignace DD, Gillooly JF. Scaling metabolism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature, 2003, 423(6940): 639-642.

[10] Falster DS, Duursma RA, Ishihara MI, Barneche DR, FitzJohn RG, Vårhammar A, Aspinwall MJ. BAAD: a biomass and allometry database for woody plants. Ecology, 2015 96 5 1445

[11] Harper WV. reduced major axis regression Wiley StatsRef: statistics reference online, 2014, New York: Wiley.

[12] Luo TX, Zhang L, Zhu HZ, Daly C, Li MC, Luo J. Correlations between net primary productivity and foliar carbon isotope ratio across a Tibetan ecosystem transect. Ecography, 2009, 32(3): 526-538.

[13] Milla R, Reich PB. The scaling of leaf area and mass: the cost of light interception increases with leaf size. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2007, 274(1622): 2109-2115.

[14] Niklas KJ, Christianson ML. 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, 2011, 98(8): 1381-1386.

[15] Niklas KJ, Cobb ED, Niinemets Ü, Reich PB, Sellin A, Shipley B, Wright IJ. “Diminishing returns” in the scaling of functional leaf traits across and within species groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2007, 104(21): 8891-8896.

[16] Powers JS, Tiffin P. Plant functional type classifications in tropical dry forests in Costa Rica: leaf habit versus taxonomic approaches. Funct Ecol, 2010, 24(4): 927-936.

[17] Price CA, Enquist BJ. Scaling mass and morphology in leaves: an extension of the WBE model. Ecology, 2007, 88(5): 1132-1141.

[18] Price CA, Enquist BJ, Savage VM. A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2007, 104(32): 13204-13209.

[19] Price CA, Gilooly JF, Allen AP, Weitz JS, Niklas KJ. The metabolic theory of ecology: prospects and challenges for plant biology. New Phytol, 2010, 188(3): 696-710.

[20] Robinson D. Scaling the depths: below-ground allocation in plants, forests and biomes. Funct Ecol, 2004, 18(2): 290-295.

[21] Wang CK. Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests. For Ecol Manag, 2006, 222(1): 9-16.

[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. Global meta-analysis of wood decomposition rates: a role for trait variation among tree species. Ecol Lett, 2009, 12(1): 45-56.

[24] West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 1997, 276(5309): 122-126.

[25] West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ. The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science, 1999, 284(5420): 1677-1679.

[26] West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ. A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature, 1999, 400(6745): 664-667.

[27] Wolfram Research. Mathematica (version 11.1), 2017, Champaign: Wolfram Research, Inc..

[28] Xu SS, Li Y, Wang GX. Scaling relationships between leaf mass and total plant mass across Chinese forests. PLoS ONE, 2014 9 4 e95938

[29] Zeng WS, Tang SZ. A new general allometric biomass model. Nat Preced, 2011

[30] Zianis D. Comparison between empirical and theoretical biomass allometric models and statistical implications for stem volume predictions. Forestry, 2006, 79(4): 477-487.

[31] Zianis D, Mencuccini M. On simplifying allometric analyses of forest biomass. For Ecol Manag, 2004, 187(2–3): 311-332.