Sources and consequences of mismatch between leaf disc and whole‐leaf leaf mass per area (LMA)

Phisamai Maenpuen,Masatoshi Katabuchi,Yusuke Onoda,Cong Zhou,Jiao‐Lin Zhang,Ya‐Jun Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.16038
IF: 3.325
2022-07-26
American Journal of Botany
Abstract:PREMISELeaf mass per area (LMA), which is an important functional trait in leaf economic spectrum and plant growth analysis, is measured from leaf discs or whole leaves. These differences in the measurement methods may lead to large differences in the estimates of LMA values.METHODSWe examined to what extent whole‐leaf and disc‐based LMA match using 334 woody species from a wide range of biomes (tropics, subtropics, savanna, and temperate), whether the relationship varied by leaf morphology (tissue density, leaf area, leaf thickness), puncher size (0.6‐ and 1.0‐cm diameter), and whether the extent of intraspecifc variation (ITV) for each species matches.RESULTSDisc‐based estimates of species mean LMA matched well whole‐leaf estimates, and whole‐leaf LMA tended to be 9.69% higher than leaf disc LMA. The whole‐leaf to leaf disc LMA ratio was higher for species with higher leaf tissue density and larger leaf, and their variance was greater for species with lower leaf tissue density and thinner leaves. Small leaf punch also inflated the ratio. The extent of ITV only weakly matched between whole‐leaf and disc‐based estimates (R2 = 0.08).This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
plant sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?