Ecology of Leaf Longevity (Ecological Research Monographs)
Ecology of Leaf Longevity (Ecological Research Monographs)
Ecology of Leaf Longevity (Ecological Research Monographs)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong><br />
Series Editor: Yoh Iwasa<br />
For further volumes:<br />
http://www.springer.com/series/8852
Kihachiro Kikuzawa ●<br />
Martin<br />
J. Lechowicz<br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>
Kihachiro Kikuzawa, Ph.D.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor<br />
Ishikawa Prefectural University<br />
Nonoichi, Ishikawa 921-8836<br />
Japan<br />
kikuzawa@ishikawa-pu.ac.jp<br />
Martin J. Lechowicz, Ph.D.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Biology<br />
McGill University<br />
1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue<br />
Montreal, Québec<br />
Canada H3A 1B1<br />
martin.lechowicz@mcgill.ca<br />
ISSN 2191-0707 e-ISSN 2191-0715<br />
ISBN 978-4-431-53917-9 e-ISBN 978-4-431-53918-6<br />
DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6<br />
Springer Tokyo Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York<br />
Library <strong>of</strong> Congress Control Number: 2011926414<br />
© Springer 2011<br />
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part <strong>of</strong> the material is<br />
concerned, specifically the rights <strong>of</strong> translation, reprinting, reuse <strong>of</strong> illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,<br />
reproduction on micr<strong>of</strong>ilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks.<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not<br />
imply, even in the absence <strong>of</strong> a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective<br />
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.<br />
Cover<br />
Front Cover : <strong>Leaf</strong> senescence <strong>of</strong> Fagus crenata (Japanese beech)<br />
Back Cover :<br />
Left: Bud break <strong>of</strong> Fagus crenata<br />
Center : Bud break and new leaf emergence <strong>of</strong> Mallotus japonicus<br />
Right: Bud break <strong>of</strong> Alnus hirsuta<br />
Printed on acid-free paper<br />
Springer is part <strong>of</strong> Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Preface<br />
The functional ecology <strong>of</strong> foliage is organized by seasonality. In temperate regions,<br />
leaves in deciduous forests <strong>of</strong>ten turn brilliant colors in autumn. In spring, buds <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves burst and new shoots elongate. Similarly, in seasonal tropical environments<br />
species respond to the timing <strong>of</strong> rainy and dry periods, and in the aseasonal tropics<br />
subtle environmental cues can influence the timing <strong>of</strong> leafing and shoot growth.<br />
Detailed consideration reveals the diversity underlying such broad patterns <strong>of</strong> foliar<br />
phenology. Even in the canopy <strong>of</strong> a single forest, leaf dynamics are variable within<br />
and among species. Although at a glance leaves seem to simultaneously appear in<br />
spring and drop in autumn in a deciduous forest, some individual leaves in fact<br />
develop later in the season and some leaves fall during the growing season. The evergreen<br />
habit <strong>of</strong> trees can be achieved through leaves that persist over many years but is<br />
also maintained by overlapping cohorts <strong>of</strong> fairly short-lived leaves that keep the plant<br />
canopy evergreen. These complex patterns <strong>of</strong> leaf demography suggest the necessity<br />
<strong>of</strong> monitoring the dynamics <strong>of</strong> leaves per se, not merely describing the broad patterns<br />
<strong>of</strong> phenology at the tree or forest level. By monitoring individual leaves we can obtain<br />
estimates for a fundamental demographic parameter, that is, leaf longevity, and in this<br />
way move phenology from the realm <strong>of</strong> descriptive lore to that <strong>of</strong> a modern science<br />
providing quantitative and predictive understanding <strong>of</strong> plant function.<br />
A focus on the phenology <strong>of</strong> leaves is entirely merited if for no other reason than<br />
that leaves are the most essential <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic organs. Photosynthesis is the<br />
most important chemical reaction in the world, converting radiant energy to the<br />
chemical energy that underpins life on Earth. Among the readily observed traits that<br />
characterize leaves, arguably the most broadly relevant is leaf longevity. <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
longevity is central to leaf function and is a critical factor deciding plant fitness in<br />
a given environment. Variations in leaf longevity create a contrast between deciduous<br />
and evergreen species that define the nature <strong>of</strong> entire biomes. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity<br />
correlates with the primary production <strong>of</strong> plant communities and gains increasing<br />
importance in relationship to global climatic change. In the past several decades,<br />
scientists have accumulated information on interspecific variation in leaf longevity<br />
for thousands <strong>of</strong> species and have produced various hypotheses and theories about<br />
leaf longevity and its consequences. This monograph is an attempt to review and<br />
synthesize our present understanding <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity.<br />
v
vi Preface<br />
Our own interest in leaf longevity stems from work on plant phenology that we<br />
pursued independently in the 1970s and 1980s, when the scientific study <strong>of</strong> the basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> phenological patterns was just beginning to take hold. We began our respective<br />
phenological studies on trees in the mixed-wood forests <strong>of</strong> northern Japan and eastern<br />
North America. Our interests were largely phenomenological at first, addressing<br />
questions such as why some tree species shed green leaves early in the season<br />
whereas others shed leaves only in autumn, or why some trees burst into bud earlier<br />
in spring than others. We sought explanations for these phenomena from the points<br />
<strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> physiological ecology and variation in tree life history. Our thinking was<br />
drawn from phenology to more specific questions about leaf function by Brian<br />
Chabot and David Hicks’ seminal 1982 review entitled “<strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Lifespan”<br />
and by subsequent ecophysiological work on cost–benefit analyses, especially that<br />
<strong>of</strong> Hal Mooney and Chris Field. Gradually we gravitated to deeper explanations <strong>of</strong><br />
variation in leaf longevity rooted in the evolution <strong>of</strong> plants through natural selection<br />
under the constraints <strong>of</strong> resource availability and teamed up to organize several<br />
symposia at international meetings in ecology and botany. Our collaborations were<br />
strengthened when M.J.L. had the opportunity to spend time with K.K. in Japan, first<br />
as a guest researcher at the Hokkaido Forest <strong>Research</strong> Institute and then as a visiting<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essor at Kyoto University. Through those extended visits as well as shorter ones,<br />
we carried forward an exchange <strong>of</strong> ideas that laid the framework <strong>of</strong> this book.<br />
Box 1 Evolution Through Natural Selection<br />
(continued)
Preface<br />
Box 1 (continued)<br />
In the mid-nineteenth century, Charles Darwin proposed the concept <strong>of</strong> natural<br />
selection, the foundation <strong>of</strong> modern evolutionary theory. Darwin recognized<br />
that there was some level <strong>of</strong> variation in the characteristics <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />
within a population, and that this variation in traits could affect differences in<br />
the survival and reproduction <strong>of</strong> individuals. He reasoned that over generations<br />
traits favoring greater survival and reproduction in the local environment<br />
should accumulate, or, in other words, that adaptation and fitness should<br />
increase through a process <strong>of</strong> natural selection. In Darwin’s time no one knew<br />
the genetic basis <strong>of</strong> variation in traits, but now we know that the strength <strong>of</strong><br />
natural selection depends on the heritability <strong>of</strong> traits – the degree to which<br />
characteristics can be passed from parent to <strong>of</strong>fspring. Contemporary evolutionary<br />
theory combines Darwin’s seminal idea <strong>of</strong> natural selection with our<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> genetics to explain everything from the origins <strong>of</strong> complex adaptations<br />
involving many interacting traits to the origins and interactions among<br />
species that create the diversity <strong>of</strong> life on Earth. In 1973, Theodosius<br />
Dobzhansky famously remarked that “nothing in biology makes sense except<br />
in the light <strong>of</strong> evolution.”<br />
This book considers foliar phenology through the lens <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity, which we<br />
believe can yield important insights into the functional ecology <strong>of</strong> plants. Our<br />
emphasis is on woody plants, which we know best and which also are best studied,<br />
but the principles discussed <strong>of</strong>ten apply as well to herbaceous species. We take<br />
pains to trace the development <strong>of</strong> ideas in the literature, partly in respect <strong>of</strong> pioneering<br />
work and also because the diverse streams <strong>of</strong> research that come together<br />
to form our contemporary view are best appreciated in historical perspective. We<br />
also purposely draw on Japanese-language publications reporting work relatively<br />
little known outside Japan. The book is intended to provide a comprehensive and<br />
coherent starting point for those just embarking on research about leaf longevity<br />
and its consequences at the levels <strong>of</strong> the whole plant, plant communities, and<br />
ecosystems.<br />
Box 2 Phenology<br />
Phenology is defined as the study <strong>of</strong> the timing <strong>of</strong> biological events and their<br />
relationship to seasonal climatic changes (Lieth 1974). People were conscious<br />
<strong>of</strong> the seasonal development and activity <strong>of</strong> organisms long before the scientific<br />
study <strong>of</strong> phenology emerged: survival depended on their knowing the<br />
vii<br />
(continued)
viii Preface<br />
Box 2 (continued)<br />
timing <strong>of</strong> the runs <strong>of</strong> salmon up a river or the coloring <strong>of</strong> leaves as a sign <strong>of</strong><br />
the approaching winter. In recent centuries, more precise records <strong>of</strong> phenological<br />
events began to be kept that have proven invaluable in analysis <strong>of</strong> climate<br />
change. The record <strong>of</strong> the blooming dates for cherries in Japan stretches<br />
back over 800 years and in modern times has become an integral part <strong>of</strong><br />
meteorological reporting much appreciated by Japanese people. Based on<br />
observations <strong>of</strong> sample trees at each weather station, blooming time is predicted<br />
as an advancing front moving gradually northward as spring arrives in<br />
Japan. Similar records document the first observation <strong>of</strong> the butterfly Pieris<br />
rapae and the first song <strong>of</strong> the bush warbler (Cettia diphone), as well as observations<br />
<strong>of</strong> the timing <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and senescence that define leaf<br />
longevity.<br />
Phenology and Seasonality<br />
Traditional views tie phenology to seasonality defined in terms <strong>of</strong> climatic<br />
patterns during the annual cycle defined by the planet’s transit around the<br />
sun. In middle and high latitudes where there are great differences in climate<br />
throughout the year, it is certainly reasonable to expect phenological events<br />
to reflect the responses <strong>of</strong> organisms to temporal variation in abiotic constraints<br />
on their survival and reproduction. On the other hand, climatic variation<br />
at lower latitudes can be considerably less, for example, in some<br />
equatorial forests with little or no seasonal variation in precipitation, temperature,<br />
or daylength. In these situations, and perhaps more generally, we<br />
should consider that the timing <strong>of</strong> biological events may have more to do<br />
with interactions among organisms than with any abiotic factors. The timing<br />
<strong>of</strong> emergence and senescence <strong>of</strong> individual leaves in a plant can be determined<br />
as much by interactions among leaves in a growing plant canopy as<br />
by seasonal variation in climatic conditions (Kikuzawa 1995). Similarly,<br />
synchronous leaf emergence by many different species in a plant community<br />
may have been favored by natural selection, not in response to climatic constraints<br />
but because this reduced the risk <strong>of</strong> herbivory (Aide 1988, 1992). The<br />
interdependence <strong>of</strong> plants and the organisms that pollinate their flowers and<br />
disperse their fruits provides countless additional examples <strong>of</strong> this phenomenon.<br />
We should not forget that interactions within and among organisms can<br />
affect phenology quite apart from the abiotic effects <strong>of</strong> seasonal climatic<br />
change.
Preface<br />
Box 3 Primary Production<br />
Gross primary production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP) are terms<br />
associated with ecosystem science that characterize the capture <strong>of</strong> solar energy<br />
in photosynthesis by the primary producers in the system. The total photosynthetic<br />
assimilation <strong>of</strong> carbon by a plant community is termed gross primary<br />
production (GPP), usually expressed as ton C ha −1 year −1 . Some part <strong>of</strong> this<br />
assimilated carbon is used in respiration associated with growth and maintenance:<br />
the GPP minus the carbon lost to respiratory processes is termed net<br />
primary production (NPP). The annual biomass increment associated with the<br />
growth <strong>of</strong> leaves, branches, stems, roots, and reproductive structures, plus some<br />
volatile compounds and exudates, comprise NPP. Precisely estimating NPP is<br />
no easy task! Turnover <strong>of</strong> leaves and fine roots during the year, ephemeral<br />
structures such as flowers and bud scales, biomass lost to herbivores and disease,<br />
and transfers to mycorrhizal fungal symbionts all must be accounted for.<br />
At the ecosystem level, NPP can be discounted for the respiratory losses associated<br />
with the secondary production <strong>of</strong> organisms directly (herbivores, disease)<br />
or indirectly (carnivores, parasites) consuming NPP and those decomposing<br />
organic matter to obtain an estimate <strong>of</strong> net ecosystem production (NEP).<br />
M.J.L. has enjoyed the hospitality and opportunities for intellectual growth provided<br />
by his many colleagues in Japan, but especially by K.K. This time away has been the<br />
perfect complement to the collegiality that characterizes the Department <strong>of</strong> Biology<br />
at McGill University, an academic home that could not be more congenial and stimulating.<br />
His debt is greatest, however, to his wife, friend, and colleague, Marcia<br />
Waterway, whose patient forbearance with his idiosyncrasies is exceeded only by her<br />
willingness to share her insights and ideas. M.J.L. also is grateful for enlightened and<br />
open-ended funding policies in the Discovery Grant Program at the Natural Sciences<br />
and Engineering <strong>Research</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Canada that let him pursue research on diverse<br />
and <strong>of</strong>ten esoteric topics that only sometimes turn out to have practical value.<br />
K.K. would like to express his thanks to Hiromi Kikuzawa for her encouragement<br />
and assistance in fieldwork throughout this study. Colleagues in the Hokkaido<br />
Forestry <strong>Research</strong> Institute encouraged his study for more than 20 years. Students<br />
in the Center for <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> and Graduate School <strong>of</strong> Agriculture in Kyoto<br />
University and in the Laboratory <strong>of</strong> Plant <strong>Ecology</strong> in Ishikawa Prefectural University<br />
helped during his fieldwork both in Japan and in Borneo. The Ministry <strong>of</strong> Education,<br />
Science, Sports and Culture <strong>of</strong> Japan provided essential financial support.<br />
Nonoichi, Japan Kihachiro Kikuzawa<br />
Montreal, Canada Martin J. Lechowicz<br />
July 2010<br />
ix
Contents<br />
1 Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ............................................................. 1<br />
2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death ................................................ 7<br />
Shoot Growth, Buds, and <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence ................................................. 9<br />
Budbreak and <strong>Leaf</strong> Development ............................................................... 14<br />
Photosynthetic Functionality in Mature Leaves .......................................... 16<br />
Age-Dependent Decline in Photosynthetic Capacity .................................. 19<br />
Senescence and Abscission ......................................................................... 21<br />
3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ..................................................................... 23<br />
Defining <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ............................................................................. 23<br />
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover on Shoots ........................ 25<br />
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from Census <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Cohorts over Time ......... 30<br />
Estimation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover at the Stand Level ....... 34<br />
Revisiting the Basic Concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ........................................ 35<br />
4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ...................................................................... 41<br />
Costs and Benefits <strong>of</strong> the Evergreen Versus Deciduous Habit .................... 41<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> to Maximize Whole-Plant Carbon Gain ............................ 43<br />
Modeling Self-Shading Effects on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> .................................... 46<br />
Carbon Balance at the Time <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong>fall ...................................................... 48<br />
Time Value <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Leaf</strong> ................................................................................... 49<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover in Plant Canopies ................................ 52<br />
Directions for Future Theory ...................................................................... 55<br />
5 Phylogenetic Variation in <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ............................................... 57<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ferns .............................................................................. 59<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Gymnosperms ............................................................... 60<br />
xi
xii Contents<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Angiosperms ............................................................... 61<br />
Evergreen Broad-Leaved Woody Species ............................................ 61<br />
Temperate Deciduous Trees and Shrubs .............................................. 63<br />
Tropical Trees and Shrubs .................................................................... 63<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Herbaceous Plants ....................................................... 64<br />
6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function ........................................................... 67<br />
Photosynthesis and Foliar Nitrogen Content ............................................ 70<br />
Assembling the Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function ............................................ 71<br />
Photosynthetic Function and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ........................................... 72<br />
Deciding the Core Set <strong>of</strong> Cardinal Traits .................................................. 75<br />
7 Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ........................................... 77<br />
Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ....................................... 77<br />
Plant Growth Rates and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ................................................... 78<br />
Seedling Growth and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ....................................................... 80<br />
Variation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> with Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence .................. 81<br />
Canopy Architecture and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ................................................. 82<br />
Canopy Heterogeneity and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> .............................................. 84<br />
8 Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ............................................. 87<br />
Insolation and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> .................................................................. 88<br />
Aridity and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>....................................................................... 90<br />
Nutrients and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ................................................................... 92<br />
Effects <strong>of</strong> Environmental Stress on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ................................. 94<br />
Biotic Stressors: Herbivory and Disease ................................................... 94<br />
Abiotic Stressors: Ozone and Natural Oxidants ....................................... 96<br />
Abiotic Stressors: Salinity......................................................................... 96<br />
Abiotic Stressors: Flooding....................................................................... 97<br />
9 Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and Foliar Habit ............................. 99<br />
Biogeography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit ................................................................... 100<br />
Contemporary Distribution <strong>of</strong> Deciduous and Evergreen Habits ............. 101<br />
Theory for the Geography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit ................................................ 102<br />
Modeling Foliar Habit in Relationship to Climate ................................... 108<br />
10 Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> .......................................... 109<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> in the Ecosystem ............................... 110<br />
Nutrient Resorption and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> .................................................. 111<br />
Photosynthetic Nitrogen Use Efficiency and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> .................. 115
Contents<br />
xiii<br />
Defense <strong>of</strong> Leaves and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> ................................................ 116<br />
Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence, <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>, and <strong>Leaf</strong> Defense .......... 118<br />
Linking <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and Ecosystem Function ............................... 119<br />
References ........................................................................................................ 121<br />
Subject Index ................................................................................................... 141<br />
Organism Index ............................................................................................... 145
Chapter 1<br />
Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Mixed wood forest in spring leafing period, Ithaca, New York, USA<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_1, © Springer 2011<br />
1
2 1 Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
The origins <strong>of</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity lie in the distinction between evergreen<br />
and deciduous plant species, which is not as simple as it first seems. The evergreen<br />
habit basically is defined by the retention <strong>of</strong> functional leaves in the plant canopy<br />
throughout the year, as opposed to the deciduous habit in which a plant is leafless<br />
for some part <strong>of</strong> the annual cycle. This simple evergreen–deciduous dichotomy<br />
most <strong>of</strong>ten is applied to woody trees, shrubs, and vines. Herbaceous perennials that<br />
retain leaves through winter are sometimes referred to as evergreen, or more <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
as wintergreen, in contrast to summergreen (Sydes 1984; Ohno 1990; Tessier<br />
2008), but the evergreen–deciduous dichotomy has had less attention in herbaceous<br />
species than in woody plants.<br />
Box 1.1 Plant Canopy<br />
The plant canopy can be thought <strong>of</strong> as a three-dimensional array <strong>of</strong> leaves for<br />
the capture <strong>of</strong> solar energy. The term applies at two spatial scales, but in all<br />
cases it refers to an array <strong>of</strong> leaves in space. At the level <strong>of</strong> individual plants,<br />
the structure <strong>of</strong> the canopy is determined by the way that leaves are arrayed<br />
along herbaceous stems or woody branches. The canopy <strong>of</strong> individual trees is<br />
also referred to as the tree crown, the array <strong>of</strong> branches above the trunk. At the<br />
level <strong>of</strong> a plant community, canopy structure depends on the canopy architecture<br />
<strong>of</strong> neighboring plants and the way that individuals adjust their canopy<br />
architecture in response to neighbors. In grasslands, the low-growing canopy<br />
is <strong>of</strong>ten a heterogeneous mix <strong>of</strong> vertically oriented grasses and laterally<br />
branching, broad-leaved herbs. In forests the canopy can be multilayered,<br />
with taller trees forming the forest canopy but other, less tall, trees forming a<br />
distinct subcanopy.<br />
Box 1.2 Foliar Habit<br />
Foliar habit refers to the common distinction between evergreen and deciduous<br />
plants, which in fact is not as straightforward as most people think. Foliar habit<br />
is a characteristic <strong>of</strong> the plant canopy as a whole, not <strong>of</strong> individual leaves. A<br />
plant is commonly referred to as evergreen if it retains at least some leaves<br />
throughout the year, in contrast to deciduous plants, which are bare <strong>of</strong> leaves for<br />
some part <strong>of</strong> the annual cycle <strong>of</strong> the seasons. Depending on the timing <strong>of</strong> emergence<br />
and fall <strong>of</strong> individual leaves and the number <strong>of</strong> leaves retained in the plant<br />
canopy, some subdivisions <strong>of</strong> the evergreen and deciduous habits are possible.<br />
Variations on the evergreen habit<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> exchanger: Leaves are exchanged within a year; thus, leaf longevity is<br />
shorter than 1 year but there are always viable leaves in the plant<br />
canopy.<br />
(continued)
1 Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 1.2 (continued)<br />
Semievergreen: Immediately after new leaf emergence, old leaves fall; leaf<br />
longevity is essentially 1 year, and a leafless period is not very apparent.<br />
Brevideciduous: Some leaves are shed during part <strong>of</strong> the year, but never<br />
more than 50% <strong>of</strong> the leaves, so the plant canopy appears evergreen.<br />
Semideciduous: More than 50% <strong>of</strong> leaves are lost at some time in the year,<br />
but the plant canopy is never completely bare.<br />
Heteroptosis: Some branches <strong>of</strong> a tree become completely leafless during<br />
unfavorable periods but others retain leaves throughout the year.<br />
Variations on the deciduous habit<br />
Summergreen: Leaves are shed in autumn, and in woody plants the canopy<br />
is completely bare through winter; this is a typical deciduous habit in<br />
temperate regions.<br />
Wintergreen: <strong>Leaf</strong> emergence occurs at the end <strong>of</strong> summer and leaves are<br />
retained through winter, but are shed at the onset <strong>of</strong> the next summer,<br />
and the plant is completely bare during summer.<br />
Drought deciduous: Leaves are shed during the dry season in tropical<br />
forests and deserts.<br />
Spring ephemeral: Plants have leaves only in early spring that wither by<br />
summer. This habit is usually found in herbaceous plants but has been<br />
recorded in a small tree (Aesculus sylvatica) in North America<br />
(DePamphilis and Neufeld 1989).<br />
It is important to recognize that the distinction between evergreen and deciduous<br />
species applies at the level <strong>of</strong> the entire plant canopy, not individual leaves. It is<br />
possible for a plant canopy to be evergreen by replacing relatively short-lived leaves<br />
frequently throughout the year. Of 13 evergreen species in California chaparral, 5<br />
had leaves that survived less than a year but which maintained an evergreen canopy<br />
through a prolonged period <strong>of</strong> leaf production from early spring into summer<br />
(Ackerly 2004). Although the basic evergreen–deciduous dichotomy at the canopy<br />
level is reasonably clear, some intermediate terms have arisen to describe peculiarities<br />
in leaf turnover that can lead to differing degrees <strong>of</strong> evergreenness (Sato<br />
and Sakai 1980; Eamus 1999; Eamus et al. 1999a; Eamus and Prior 2001; Franco<br />
et al. 2005; Saha et al. 2005; Negi 2006; Williams et al. 2008). Primary among<br />
these alternative terms is the recognition <strong>of</strong> a brevideciduous habit in which there<br />
is a brief period in the year when old leaves are falling and new leaves are emerging<br />
simultaneously. This intermediate habit also is referred to as “leaf exchanger”<br />
(Whitmore 1990), “incomplete deciduousness” (Hatta and Darnaedi 2005), and<br />
“semievergreen (Singh and Kushwaha 2005). The canopy in such species is never<br />
entirely leafless, even briefly, and therefore cannot be considered truly deciduous,<br />
but then neither can it be considered any more than marginally evergreen. From<br />
developmental, phylogenetic, and functional points <strong>of</strong> view, this brevideciduous<br />
3
4 1 Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
habit appears to be more a variant <strong>of</strong> the deciduous habit rather than a true<br />
evergreen habit. Even a north temperate forest tree such as Carpinus caroliniana<br />
that is commonly perceived as unambiguously deciduous in response to harsh<br />
winter conditions is brevideciduous at the southern limits <strong>of</strong> its native geographic<br />
range (Borchert et al. 2005). The widespread tropical tree, Shorea robusta, which is<br />
usually considered evergreen, in fact shows similarly plastic rangewide responses<br />
in the timing <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover (Singh and Kushwaha 2005). There is clearly a degree<br />
<strong>of</strong> plasticity and ambiguity in what at first seems a straightforward dichotomy<br />
between the deciduous and evergreen habits. Similarly, the simple association<br />
between the deciduous habit and strongly seasonal climates is belied by its<br />
occurrence in aseasonal tropical forests as well (Hatta and Darnaedi 2005).<br />
In these same tropical forests, some <strong>of</strong> the evergreen species maintained relatively<br />
constant leaf numbers through either steady or episodic turnover <strong>of</strong> leaves throughout<br />
the year, while others were evergreen but allowed their leaf numbers to drop to<br />
only 30–60% <strong>of</strong> full canopy at some point in the year (Hatta and Darnaedi 2005).<br />
Although the evergreen–deciduous dichotomy has been recognized since ancient<br />
times, it is only in the 20th century that appreciation for the diversity in leaf demography<br />
that underlies observations at the scale <strong>of</strong> whole trees and forests has emerged<br />
to make sense <strong>of</strong> these variations within the basic dichotomy.<br />
The pioneering phytogeographic studies <strong>of</strong> Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé<br />
Bonpland (1807) were the first to stimulate scientific interest in the contrast<br />
between evergreen versus deciduous trees and forests. Western botanists already<br />
were familiar with the broad-leaved deciduous forests <strong>of</strong> central Europe and<br />
needle-leaved conifer forests <strong>of</strong> northern Europe, but Humboldt and Bonpland<br />
called attention to the somewhat surprising existence <strong>of</strong> tropical forests dominated<br />
by broad-leaved evergreen species <strong>of</strong> flowering plants. Since then, the distinction<br />
between the evergreen and deciduous habit has figured in the classification <strong>of</strong><br />
vegetation types by phytogeographers and ecologists (Grisebach 1838, 1884;<br />
Warming 1909; Whittaker 1962; Walter et al. 2002; Woodward et al. 2004). By the<br />
late nineteenth century a complementary stream <strong>of</strong> inquiry had arisen that sought<br />
to explain the environmental basis for predominance <strong>of</strong> the evergreen habit and the<br />
frequently allied condition <strong>of</strong> small, tough, long-lived leaves referred to as sclerophylly<br />
(Beadle 1954, 1966; Loveless 1961; Monk 1966; Mooney and Dunn<br />
1970a,b). Schimper’s (1903) classic book entitled Plant-Geography Upon a<br />
Physiological Basis consolidated the earliest work in this field and raised questions<br />
that continue to be investigated to the present day. It is these attempts to discover<br />
the adaptive value <strong>of</strong> evergreenness and sclerophylly that eventually led to the study<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf longevity in its own right.<br />
Recognizing that the evergreen habit and sclerophylly were associated with dry<br />
and infertile sites, most <strong>of</strong> the work following Schimper (1903) focused on the<br />
evergreen and deciduous habits as alternative strategies for managing water and<br />
nutrient resources. Mooney and Dunn (1970a,b), for example, adopted a wholeplant<br />
perspective on adaptation to explain the occurrence <strong>of</strong> evergreen and deciduous<br />
species along gradients <strong>of</strong> moisture availability in the Mediterranean climates <strong>of</strong><br />
Chile and southern California. They observed that as the summer dry period
1 Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
became longer, dominance in the chaparral vegetation shifted from evergreen to<br />
deciduous species. They concluded that so long as the dry period was not too<br />
prolonged, the deeply rooted, sclerophyllous evergreens with their relatively low<br />
photosynthetic rates were more productive over the year than the shallow-rooted,<br />
mesophyllic deciduous species. Conversely, when the dry period was not long, the<br />
high photosynthetic rates typical <strong>of</strong> mesophyllic leaves conferred an advantage on<br />
the deciduous species that were better able to exploit the cool, wet winter season<br />
and to avoid water loss by being leafless in the hot, dry summer. In a related cost–<br />
benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> leaves as photosynthetic organs, Orians and Solbrig (1977) were<br />
the first to <strong>of</strong>fer a functional explanation at the leaf level for sclerophylly and the<br />
evergreen habit. They postulated that plants adapted to hydric conditions should<br />
have drought-deciduous, mesophyllic leaves, photosynthesize rapidly when water<br />
was readily available, and cease photosynthetic activity quickly as conditions<br />
became drier (Fig. 1.1). On the other hand, they expected plants adapted to xeric<br />
conditions to have evergreen leaves persistent through drought periods, with<br />
relatively low photosynthetic rates even when water was readily available, but able<br />
to withstand drought through conservative stomatal regulation and low cuticular<br />
water loss associated with sclerophylly. In this their ideas followed Mooney and<br />
Dunn (1970a,b), but they also specifically suggested that the association <strong>of</strong> sclerophylly<br />
with the evergreen habit arose in the time required to recover leaf construction<br />
costs. Given the low photosynthetic capacity <strong>of</strong> sclerophyllous leaves, only an<br />
evergreen habit allowing amortization over more than a single year could recover<br />
Fig. 1.1 The Orians and Solbrig (1977) expectations for photosynthetic activity in response to<br />
water availability as a function <strong>of</strong> different plant strategies. Soil water availability is on the<br />
abscissa, from wet to dry; photosynthetic activity is on the ordinate. Four hypothetical species are<br />
illustrated: darker shading shows the portion <strong>of</strong> the moisture gradient where each species is<br />
respectively at an advantage in terms <strong>of</strong> potential productivity. X indicates a species with xeromorphic<br />
(sclerophyllous) leaves; m indicates a species with mesomorphic leaves<br />
5
6 1 Foliar Habit and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
the relatively high costs <strong>of</strong> leaf construction in sclerophylls. Mesophyllic leaves,<br />
which cost less to construct and have higher photosynthetic capacity, were associated<br />
conversely with the deciduous habit. The Orians and Solbrig (1977) model<br />
embodies ideas about trade-<strong>of</strong>fs in foliar design still prevalent today and stands as<br />
the first theoretical model associating leaf photosynthetic function and leaf longevity<br />
with the distinction between evergreen and deciduous plants.<br />
A seminal review a few years later by Chabot and Hicks (1982) marks a turning<br />
point in consideration <strong>of</strong> the nature and causes for the evergreen versus deciduous<br />
habits. Their review consolidated ideas emerging in the previous decade, decisively<br />
shifting the discussion from questions <strong>of</strong> resource availability and resource<br />
management at the whole-plant level to leaf longevity as a central trait in foliar<br />
function that determined whether a plant was evergreen or deciduous. Picking up<br />
on the perspective <strong>of</strong> Orians and Solbrig (1977), they presented a cost–benefit<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf carbon economy based on the premise that leaves are fundamentally<br />
photosynthetic organs, which over their lifetime must repay to the plant the carbon<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> their construction. More formally, they introduced the following equation<br />
for the carbon economy <strong>of</strong> a single leaf:<br />
∑ fi ∑ ui<br />
(1.1)<br />
G = P − P −C−W −H −S<br />
where G is the net carbon gain by a single leaf that is exported to other parts <strong>of</strong> the<br />
plant over a year, P fi is the carbon gain by a leaf at age i during any favorable period<br />
for photosynthesis over the year, and P ui is the net carbon exchange <strong>of</strong> the leaf<br />
during any periods unfavorable for photosynthesis. Because the photosynthetic gain<br />
during an unfavorable period is by definition zero or nearly so, the net gain during<br />
an unfavorable period typically will be negative consequent to respiratory carbon<br />
losses associated with maintenance and defense <strong>of</strong> the leaf. The term C is the<br />
construction cost to produce the leaf. Although the actual construction <strong>of</strong> a leaf<br />
occurs over some finite period <strong>of</strong> time, Chabot and Hicks (1982) imposed the<br />
cumulative construction cost at the time <strong>of</strong> leaf expansion when the leaf becomes<br />
photosynthetically active; the leaf construction cost therefore is independent <strong>of</strong><br />
time. Similarly, any damage by wind (W) or herbivores and pathogens (H) is also<br />
accumulated and considered independent <strong>of</strong> time during the leaf lifespan. Finally,<br />
Chabot and Hicks (1982) recognized that some part (S) <strong>of</strong> the photosynthate<br />
produced by the leaf might be stored or utilized in foliar tissues rather than translocated<br />
to another part <strong>of</strong> the plant, and hence would not contribute to the net gain<br />
<strong>of</strong> the plant from that individual leaf. Reasoning in this conceptual framework and<br />
reviewing available data, Chabot and Hicks (1982) argued that leaf longevity thus<br />
should be determined by the balance between costs represented in the negative<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> (1.1) and benefits represented in the positive terms. Their conceptual<br />
framework and the literature they reviewed firmly placed the leaf in the context <strong>of</strong><br />
the plant as a whole, inviting subsequent analyses <strong>of</strong> how variation in leaf demography<br />
contributes to the distinction between evergreen and the deciduous habits.
Chapter 2<br />
Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
Bud burst <strong>of</strong> Alnus hirsuta<br />
The evolutionary origin <strong>of</strong> leaves traces back to the gradual modification <strong>of</strong> branching<br />
systems in the earliest land plants. The vascular plants belonging to the phylum<br />
Rhyniophyta that first colonized land more than 400 million years ago had only<br />
simple dichotomously branching axes without organs we would recognize as either<br />
leaves or roots (Sussex and Kerk 2001). The early evolution <strong>of</strong> the land plants<br />
involved a combination <strong>of</strong> progressive changes in branching architecture (overtopping)<br />
and the associated flattening (plantation, fusion) <strong>of</strong> some branch elements to<br />
form laminar photosynthetic organs that we recognize as leaves (Sussex and Kerk<br />
2001; Boyce and Knoll 2002; Donoghue 2005). Over the course <strong>of</strong> the Paleozoic,<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_2, © Springer 2011<br />
7
8 2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
four different vascular plant lineages evolved leaves: the ferns, sphenopsids, progymnosperms,<br />
and seed plants (Boyce and Knoll 2002). The leaves <strong>of</strong> extant members <strong>of</strong><br />
these lineages are the primary photosynthetic organs in the great majority <strong>of</strong> plant<br />
species. The earliest leaves in all four lineages were small, narrow, and single veined<br />
(“microphylls”), arrayed along highly dissected branching systems but larger and<br />
broader multiveined leaves (“macrophylls”) gradually become predominant in the<br />
fern, gymnosperm, and angiosperm lineages (Boyce and Knoll 2002). The earliest <strong>of</strong><br />
these land plants are believed to have been evergreen, but by the early Carboniferous<br />
Archaeopteris may have had some deciduous characteristics (Addicott 1982; Thomas<br />
and Sadras 2001). The unambiguous origin <strong>of</strong> a seasonally adapted deciduous habit<br />
arose only later in the polar forests <strong>of</strong> a “greenhouse Earth” where plants had to contend<br />
with dark but warm winters and fire-prone conditions (Brentnall et al. 2005). By<br />
the Permian there is some evidence for the seasonally programmed turnover <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
in the Glossopteris flora <strong>of</strong> polar regions (Taylor and Ryberg 2007) and strong evidence<br />
for deciduous polar forests by the Cretaceous (Taggart and Cross 2009).<br />
The leaves <strong>of</strong> contemporary plant species typically are arrayed along a stem segment<br />
to form a shoot. The basic unit <strong>of</strong> shoot construction is a metamer consisting <strong>of</strong> a<br />
leaf and bud at a node along a stem and an associated internodal stem segment<br />
(Barlow 1989). Shoots composed <strong>of</strong> some number <strong>of</strong> metamers (Fig. 2.1) can be<br />
considered the modular units <strong>of</strong> organization in the aboveground portion <strong>of</strong> plants<br />
a<br />
b<br />
c<br />
Fig. 2.1 Growth <strong>of</strong> a plant by the accumulation <strong>of</strong> modules. (a) The shoot, a stem section with<br />
leaves, is the basic modular unit <strong>of</strong> plant vegetative growth. (b) A plant canopy grows by accumulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> modules, sometimes only by apical extension, and other times (c) by lateral branching<br />
from dormant buds. Some leaves and shoots typically will be shed as growth <strong>of</strong> the entire plant<br />
proceeds, and the developing plant canopy can take on a degree <strong>of</strong> asymmetry as shoots interact<br />
with one another and respond to their immediate microenvironment (d)<br />
d
Shoot Growth, Buds, and <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
(White 1979; Jones 1985; Maillette 1987; Hallé 1986; Watson 1986; Room et al.<br />
1994). Shoot growth arises in meristematic tissues associated with the apex <strong>of</strong> the<br />
shoot (apical buds) or in terms <strong>of</strong> branching with the base <strong>of</strong> leaves (lateral buds).<br />
Buds contain a short stem with leaf primordia and embryonic leaves, essentially<br />
a partially developed, preformed shoot (Kikuzawa 1982; Jones and Watson 2001).<br />
Embryonic leaves have partially developed lamina with distinguishable venation;<br />
leaf primordia are too early in development for features <strong>of</strong> the mature leaf to be<br />
discerned. Buds are usually, but not always, enveloped by bud scales, which confer<br />
a degree <strong>of</strong> protection from dessication and herbivory (Kikuzawa 1982; Nitta and<br />
Ohsawa 1998). Shoots have a degree <strong>of</strong> autonomous regulation over their dormancy,<br />
growth, and senescence but also interact with other shoots in a coordinated way to<br />
form the plant canopy as a whole (Thomas 2002; Barthélémy and Caraglio 2007).<br />
Shoot Growth, Buds, and <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> Alnus hirsuta<br />
The emergence <strong>of</strong> leaves, the growth <strong>of</strong> shoots, and the development <strong>of</strong> buds<br />
containing future shoots are inextricably interlinked. At budburst, shoot extension<br />
occurs in concert with leaf emergence, and as the bout <strong>of</strong> extension growth ends,<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> buds containing future shoots ensues. This sequence is illustrated<br />
by data from Maruyama (1978) on shoot elongation <strong>of</strong> deciduous broadleaved<br />
saplings in a Japanese beech forest showing two contrasting modes <strong>of</strong> shoot<br />
growth (Fig. 2.2). One mode is illustrated by Fagus in which the shoot elongates<br />
and leaves emerge more or less simultaneously in a short burst <strong>of</strong> growth; this has<br />
been referred to as Fagus-type (Maruyama 1978), flush-type (Kikuzawa 1983,<br />
9
10 2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
Shoot Elongation %<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
Fig. 2.2 Three temporal patterns <strong>of</strong> shoot elongation <strong>of</strong> tree species in a deciduous broad-leaved<br />
forest in Niigata, Japan. Shoot elongation and bud development are relativized to their maximum<br />
size (100%) and plotted against calendar months. (After Maruyama 1978; redrawn by Kikuzawa)<br />
1984, 1988), or determinate (Kozlowski 1971; Marks 1975; Lechowicz 1984) shoot<br />
growth. Populus is an example <strong>of</strong> a succeeding-type (Maruyama 1978; Kikuzawa<br />
1983, 1984, 1988) or indeterminate (Kozlowski 1971; Marks 1975; Lechowicz<br />
1984) shoot growth in which the shoot elongates and leaves emerge over a relatively<br />
long period. The period <strong>of</strong> indeterminate shoot growth can be fairly short, as<br />
in Lindera, or quite extended, as in Populus (Maruyama 1978; Kikuzawa 1983).<br />
The noteworthy contrasts between these determinate and indeterminate modes <strong>of</strong><br />
shoot growth, respectively, are (1) the episodic versus ongoing extension growth<br />
and leaf emergence and (2) the temporal separation versus overlap <strong>of</strong> bud development<br />
from extension and leaf emergence. The same two basic patterns <strong>of</strong> shoot growth<br />
prevail in tropical forests (Koriba 1947a,b, 1958; Lowman 1992), in savanna species<br />
in the western Himalayas (Zhang et al. 2007), in herbaceous plants (Kikuzawa<br />
2003), and in ferns (Hamilton 1990). These patterns <strong>of</strong> shoot growth and leaf emergence<br />
should be observed in any type <strong>of</strong> vegetation in the world because they arise<br />
in the developmental controls on shoot growth, not the diverse environmental factors<br />
that trigger the onset <strong>of</strong> growth (Kikuzawa et al. 1998).<br />
Box 2.1 Bud Scale<br />
0<br />
Fagus<br />
Lindera<br />
M J J A S O<br />
Calendar Month<br />
Buds are a plant structure protecting vulnerable meristematic tissues and<br />
embryonic leaves from cold or desiccation during a dormant period. The<br />
modified, scale-like leaves that form the outer layers <strong>of</strong> many buds are called<br />
bud scales. Buds form at the base <strong>of</strong> existing leaves and do not develop into<br />
leaves until the parent leaf falls.<br />
Populus
Shoot Growth, Buds, and <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
The basic patterns <strong>of</strong> shoot growth are also reflected in contrasting degrees <strong>of</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong> the embryonic shoot within the bud. In determinate species, leaves<br />
in the bud are unexpanded but already nearly completely developed before budburst,<br />
and all the leaves appear simultaneously as a flush associated with rapid stem elongation;<br />
this type <strong>of</strong> simultaneous shoot growth is always associated with fully<br />
preformed shoots (Hallé 1978). Expansion <strong>of</strong> the embryonic leaves in a preformed<br />
shoot may be arrested after their initial development for weeks or even years before<br />
budburst (Foster 1929, 1931; Garrison 1949a,b, 1955; Barthélémy and Caraglio<br />
2007). In species with indeterminate shoot growth, in contrast, single leaves appear<br />
successively along a slowly growing shoot (Kikuzawa 1978, 2003). Leaves <strong>of</strong><br />
species with successive, indeterminate shoot growth may be either preformed in the<br />
bud (Kikuzawa 1982) or newly produced (ne<strong>of</strong>ormed) during the growing season.<br />
Some trees, such as species in the genus Betula, have both determinate “short<br />
shoots” and indeterminate “long shoots” within their canopy (Kikuzawa 1983).<br />
Leaves on the short shoots and the initial leaves on long shoots are preformed in the<br />
overwintering bud, and later leaves on the extending long shoots are formed only<br />
in the season they emerge (Macdonald and Mothersill 1983; Macdonald et al. 1984;<br />
Caesar and Macdonald 1984). These patterns <strong>of</strong> simultaneous leaf emergence in<br />
species with determinate shoot growth and successive leafing in species with<br />
indeterminate shoot growth, as well as the combination <strong>of</strong> the two shoot growth<br />
syndromes in some species, are found in evergreen trees in temperate regions (Nitta<br />
and Ohsawa 1997), herbaceous plants (Yoshie and Yoshida 1989; Kikuzawa 2003),<br />
and tropical trees (Lowman 1992; Kikuzawa 1978; Miyazawa et al. 2006).<br />
There also is some relationship between the structure <strong>of</strong> buds and the nature <strong>of</strong><br />
shoot growth and leaf emergence in deciduous broad-leaved trees (Kikuzawa 1983,<br />
1984, 1986). Species that have buds covered by well-developed, distinct bud scales<br />
inevitably have determinate shoot growth (flushing with simultaneous leafing), but<br />
not all species with determinate shoot growth necessarily have true bud scales. For<br />
example, Styrax obassia has a naked bud, but it also has determinate shoot growth.<br />
The incipient shoot forming within the bud <strong>of</strong> any species with true bud scales is<br />
referred to as heteronomous (Fig. 2.3) because the shoot contains two types <strong>of</strong> metameric<br />
units: one forms the bud scales themselves and the other forms true leaves<br />
(Kikuzawa 1983, 1986). On the other hand, species with indeterminate shoot growth<br />
(successive leafing) generally lack true bud scales and are referred to as homonomous:<br />
all the metameric units comprising the shoot are basically identical, producing<br />
leaves that may or may not have stipules or other ancillary structures derived from<br />
the leaf lamina functioning as bud scales in the outermost metameric whorl. In Alnus<br />
hirsuta, for example, the stipules <strong>of</strong> the outermost leaf function as scales enveloping<br />
the bud as opposed to the distinct bud scales in Ulmus davidiana (see Fig. 2.3).<br />
In the Aceraceae there is a morphological series suggesting the evolutionary transition<br />
from homonomous to heteronomous buds (Sakai 1990). Dipteronia, the closest and<br />
more primitive relative <strong>of</strong> Acer, is homonomous, lacking bud scales entirely<br />
(Fig. 2.4). In Acer species with determinate shoot growth the distinction between<br />
normal leaves and bud scales is clear – the bud is fully heteronomous. In Acer species<br />
with indeterminate shoot growth, however, the distinction between heteronomy<br />
11
Fig. 2.3 Cross sections <strong>of</strong> the two types <strong>of</strong> buds in deciduous broad-leaved trees. (a) Homonomous<br />
bud <strong>of</strong> Alnus hirsuta with repetitions <strong>of</strong> the same basic unit <strong>of</strong> two stipules and a lamina. (b) Heteronomous<br />
bud <strong>of</strong> Ulmus davidiana with bud scales at the outermost part <strong>of</strong> the bud distinctly different<br />
from the embryonic leaves to the interior <strong>of</strong> the bud. (After Kikuzawa 1983)<br />
Fig. 2.4 The linkage between the development <strong>of</strong> bud scales and shoot elongation patterns (Sakai<br />
1990). Dipteronia, the closest relative <strong>of</strong> Acer, has no bud scales. In Acer species, young bud<br />
scales have a rudimentary blade at their tips, which disappears during development, suggesting<br />
bud scales originated from normal leaves. Minute rudimentary blades exist at the tip <strong>of</strong> the inner<br />
bud scales in Acer species with indeterminate shoot growth but not in those with determinate<br />
shoot growth
Shoot Growth, Buds, and <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
and homonomy is blurred. The innermost bud scales have rudimentary leaf blades at<br />
their tips that suggest true bud scales in Acer are derived through the evolutionary<br />
modification <strong>of</strong> laminar tissues (Sakai 1990). Similar correlations between the<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> bud scale development and leaf emergence patterns can be observed in the<br />
Betulaceae (Kikuzawa 1980, 1982).<br />
The situation is somewhat similar in evergreen broad-leaved tree species, but it<br />
is less clear cut because the timing <strong>of</strong> shoot growth and bud development is not as<br />
constrained seasonally as in broadleaf deciduous trees. Three types <strong>of</strong> buds can be<br />
recognized: naked buds lacking scales, hypsophyllary buds covered with s<strong>of</strong>t green<br />
leaf-like hypsophylls, and scaled buds covered by many hard imbricate brown<br />
scales (Nitta and Ohsawa 1998). Buds with well-developed scales are typically<br />
found in canopy tree species such as Castanopsis cuspidata, Quercus acuta, and<br />
Machilus thunbergii, and naked and hypsophyllary buds in subcanopy or understory<br />
species such Cleyera japonica, Eurya japonica, and Maesa japonica. Species<br />
with naked buds do not form winter buds, instead having shoot growth with acropetal<br />
production <strong>of</strong> leaves throughout the growing period. Species with hypsophyllary<br />
buds have shoot growth during April and June in the warm temperate forests<br />
<strong>of</strong> Japan, forming a terminal bud at the same time that then has no further morphological<br />
development until budbreak the following March or April. Species with bud<br />
scales have rapid shoot growth in May and June; during this stem elongation<br />
period, the shoot tip has an immature hypsophyllary bud. After the completion <strong>of</strong><br />
stem elongation in early summer, a bud protected with many scales gradually develops<br />
through the summer, fall, and winter within this immature hypsophyllary bud<br />
(Fig. 2.5).<br />
Fig. 2.5 Development <strong>of</strong> buds from May through October and mature bud condition in December<br />
in two evergreen broad-leaved trees: Cleyera japonica (left) and Quercus acuta (right). The<br />
hypsophyllary buds <strong>of</strong> Cleyera japonica are produced in spring within the mother bud but show<br />
no further morphological development until the following spring. In Quercus acuta, the hypsophyllary<br />
bud formed in spring develops into a scaled bud throughout the period until budburst the<br />
next year. Open bars, hypsophyllary-bud phase; closed bar, scaled-bud phase. (After Nitta and<br />
Ohsawa 1998)<br />
13
14 2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
Budbreak and <strong>Leaf</strong> Development<br />
The timing <strong>of</strong> budbreak in species <strong>of</strong> temperate regions is usually in response to a<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> photoperiodic cues and spring warming (Lechowicz 2001). The control<br />
<strong>of</strong> budbreak in tropical species is less clear, but in species from seasonal climatic<br />
regimes the water balance <strong>of</strong> the plant itself serves as a cue (Borchert 1994). At the<br />
time <strong>of</strong> budbreak, embryonic leaves expand by absorbing water, in some cases with<br />
further cell divisions (Dengler and Tsukaya 2001; Barthélémy and Caraglio 2007).<br />
The duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong> leaf expansion depends on four factors: (1) the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> primordial cells, (2) the rate <strong>of</strong> cell division, (3) the duration <strong>of</strong> the phase <strong>of</strong> cell<br />
division, and (4) the size <strong>of</strong> the individual mature cells (Gregory1956). Newly<br />
emerged leaves <strong>of</strong>ten are brightly colored and only become green at full expansion<br />
(Dominy et al. 2002). Full expansion <strong>of</strong> the leaf typically requires <strong>of</strong> the order <strong>of</strong><br />
10–15 days from budbreak, but this timing varies substantially and is influenced by<br />
both environmental conditions and phylogenetic considerations. It should be noted<br />
that terrestrial monocotyledons with graminoid growth forms, such as sedges<br />
(Hirose et al. 1989) and grasses (Bowes 1997), as well as the gymnosperm Welwitschia,<br />
all have a different mode <strong>of</strong> leaf development in which basal meristems continuously<br />
form new leaf tissues. Hence in these plants, the leaf has different age tissues<br />
with the tip oldest and the base youngest (Mooney and Ehleringer 1997).<br />
Because leaves are the primary organs <strong>of</strong> plant productivity, the logical benchmark<br />
for leaf maturation is attainment <strong>of</strong> full photosynthetic capacity. Instantaneous rates<br />
<strong>of</strong> photosynthesis are influenced by environmental conditions such as ambient<br />
temperature, vapor pressure deficit, atmospheric CO 2 level, and soil water potential,<br />
as well as plant condition and stage <strong>of</strong> development, but ultimately are most dependent<br />
on irradiance (Larcher 2001; Lambers et al. 1998). Given the very dynamic<br />
nature <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic rates, what single value might serve as an index <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
maturation and more generally as an index <strong>of</strong> leaf function? It is reasonable to focus<br />
initially on the response <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic rate to irradiance, the flow <strong>of</strong> photons on<br />
which this biochemical process depends. Although the net photosynthetic response<br />
to irradiance varies among and within plant species, the basic shape <strong>of</strong> the response<br />
curve is consistent (Fig. 2.6). At very low irradiance, respiratory loss <strong>of</strong> CO 2 is<br />
greater than photosynthetic gains, but as irradiance increases photosynthesis<br />
predominates and net gains <strong>of</strong> CO 2 increase to an asymptote. This asymptotic rate<br />
<strong>of</strong> net photosynthesis under saturating irradiance and otherwise optimal conditions<br />
is referred to as photosynthetic capacity, A max . Photosynthetic capacity is commonly<br />
taken as the cardinal value most useful in assessing foliar function and plant adaptation<br />
(Wright et al. 2004).<br />
In many, but not all, species photosynthetic capacity develops steadily after<br />
budbreak, reaching its maximal value when the leaf is fully expanded (Saeki 1959;<br />
Šesták 1981; Hodanova 1981; Castro-Diez et al. 2005; Warren 2006). This pattern<br />
is typical <strong>of</strong> relatively short-lived leaves, but in species with longer-lived leaves<br />
months can pass until full photosynthetic capacity is attained. For example, in Abies<br />
veitchii, leaves appear in June but maximum photosynthetic capacity is reached
Budbreak and <strong>Leaf</strong> Development<br />
Fig. 2.6 Typical light-<br />
response curves <strong>of</strong> early,<br />
mid and late successional<br />
species are shown. (From<br />
Bazzaz 1979)<br />
Maturation period (d)<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
slope=0.701***<br />
Ca<br />
Photosynthesis<br />
(mg CO2 dm –2 h –1 )<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
–10<br />
15<br />
Early<br />
Mid<br />
3 6<br />
Late<br />
9<br />
Light Intensity (1000 ft-c)<br />
Cj Cs<br />
Fig. 2.7 <strong>Leaf</strong> maturation period and leaf mass area across different evergreen broad-leaved tree<br />
species (Miyazawa et al. 1998): Ad, Actinidia deliciosa; As, Annona spraguei; Bn, Brassica<br />
napus; Ca, C<strong>of</strong>fea arabica; Cp, Connarus panamensis; Cs, Castanopsis sieboldii; Cu, Cucumis<br />
sativus; Dp, Desmopsis panamensis; Ma, Morisonia americana; Ol, Ouratea lucens; Qr, Quercus<br />
rubra; Tc, Theobroma cacao; Xm, Xylopia micrantha. Open squares, species attaining full photosynthetic<br />
capacity before full leaf expansion; open triangles, species attaining full photosynthetic<br />
capacity at full expansion; closed squares, delayed greening; d, days<br />
only in August (Matsumoto 1984); in Pinus pumila, full photosynthetic capacity is<br />
attained only in September or even the following spring (Kajimoto 1990). Evergreen<br />
broad-leaved trees such as Machilus thunbergii, Castanopsis sieboldii, and<br />
Quercus glauca show similar delay in foliar development (Kusumoto 1961;<br />
Miyazawa et al. 1998). In general, broad-leaved evergreen species with heavier, longerlived<br />
leaves take longer to develop their full photosynthetic capacity (Miyazawa<br />
et al. 1998; Fig. 2.7).<br />
Ad<br />
Cs*<br />
60<br />
Ma<br />
40<br />
Xm<br />
Ol<br />
Dp<br />
Qr<br />
Cp Qm<br />
Mt<br />
Ns<br />
Qg<br />
20 Cu As Tc<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Bn<br />
Pv<br />
50100 150 200 250<br />
LMA (g m −2 )
16 2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
Photosynthetic Functionality in Mature Leaves<br />
Once a leaf has attained full photosynthetic function, various factors constrain its<br />
performing to full capacity at all times. The overall situation is illustrated by a<br />
diurnal and seasonal record <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis in a Mediterranean shrub, Phlomis<br />
fruticosa (Fig. 2.8). The light reactions <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis obviously are precluded<br />
at night, and the diurnal trace <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis generally is in proportion to insolation<br />
from dawn to dusk if other conditions are favorable. In this evergreen<br />
Mediterranean shrub, photosynthesis is low during the summer dry season and relatively<br />
high in winter and spring when water is more available. Leaves function at<br />
their maximum photosynthetic capacity (A max ) only near midday in early June, falling<br />
well below their photosynthetic potential throughout midsummer and early fall. In<br />
the transition from late spring to early summer as soil water supplies diminish and<br />
atmospheric vapor pressure deficits increase, first midday and then late afternoon<br />
photosynthesis is depressed despite high levels <strong>of</strong> insolation (Kyparissis et al.<br />
1997). Such midday depression <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis in response to limited water<br />
supplies is well known in species from temperate (Ishida and Tani 2003), tropical<br />
(Zots and Winter 1994, 1996; Zots et al. 1995; Ishida et al. 1999), and even arctic<br />
(Gebauer et al. 1998) climates. These and innumerable other examples document<br />
the fact that over their lifetime leaves do not work to their full instantaneous<br />
photosynthetic capacity, A max .<br />
Acknowledging this reality, Kikuzawa introduced the concept <strong>of</strong> the mean labor<br />
time <strong>of</strong> a leaf, the cumulative amount <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis achieved by a leaf over its<br />
lifetime compared to the potential value if a leaf were able to work to its full capacity<br />
20<br />
16<br />
12<br />
8<br />
Time <strong>of</strong> day<br />
JUN7<br />
JUN26<br />
JUL6<br />
JUL17<br />
AUG11<br />
SEP24<br />
OCT19<br />
NOV11<br />
OCT23<br />
APR4<br />
MAR18<br />
JAN30<br />
DEC14<br />
NOV28<br />
Fig. 2.8 Diurnal and seasonal record <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis for mature leaves <strong>of</strong> an evergreen<br />
Mediterranean shrub, Phlomis fruticosa, growing at low elevation. The leaves were produced in<br />
April–May 1992 and measured from June 1992 to April 1993, just before this leaf cohort began<br />
to senesce and abscise. (From Kyparissis et al. 1997)<br />
0<br />
10<br />
5<br />
APR19<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
P n (µmol m −2 s −1 )
Photosynthetic Functionality in Mature Leaves<br />
all the time (Kikuzawa et al. 2004). Mean labor time provides a complement to the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> A max as a cardinal trait characterizing variation in leaf function. It is essentially<br />
a single, summary variable that subsumes all the environmental and ontogenetic factors<br />
that can reduce photosynthesis below its maximum value over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> a<br />
leaf. Mean labor time (m) expressed as an average per day is defined by<br />
a h<br />
17<br />
m = 24 G / G<br />
(2.1)<br />
where G h is a hypothetical lifetime photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> a leaf, assuming that the<br />
leaf works 24 h at A max throughout its lifetime; G a is the actual photosynthetic rate<br />
<strong>of</strong> the leaf throughout its lifetime. This definitive equation can be decomposed into<br />
terms representing the various factors that lead to photosynthetic performance<br />
below full capacity:<br />
G G a pclear GpGpLGa m = 24 = 24 (2.2)<br />
G G G G G<br />
h h pclear p pL<br />
where G pclear is the lifetime carbon gain <strong>of</strong> a single leaf, supposing that every day<br />
through its life is a clear day. Even if a day is cloudless, the solar angle changes<br />
with time <strong>of</strong> day, hence the leaf still cannot attain maximum photosynthetic rate<br />
throughout the day; this ratio <strong>of</strong> G pclear and G h is designated the diel effect. The<br />
term G p represents the lifetime carbon gain under actual weather conditions.<br />
There are cloudy days and rainy days over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> a leaf when insolation<br />
is reduced compared to a clear sky condition and the photosynthetic rate is<br />
depressed; this ratio <strong>of</strong> G p and G pclear is designated the overcast effect. The term<br />
G pL represents the carbon gain by a leaf under realized insolation over its lifetime,<br />
including the effects <strong>of</strong> shading by surrounding plants and self-shading <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves within the plant canopy; this ratio <strong>of</strong> G pL and G p is designated the shading<br />
effect. The final term is the ratio <strong>of</strong> actual photosynthesis <strong>of</strong> a leaf over its lifetime<br />
and the potential photosynthetic rate under its realized insolation regime.<br />
The ratio <strong>of</strong> G a and G pL represents the influence <strong>of</strong> environmental factors other<br />
than insolation that suppress, such as the midday depression resulting from<br />
water balance limitations or the effects <strong>of</strong> suboptimal temperatures for maximum<br />
photosynthetic gains. This ratio <strong>of</strong> G a and G pL is designated the depression<br />
effect. The mean labor time <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> Alnus sieboldiana was calculated to be<br />
around only 5 h per day on average over their lifetime (Kikuzawa et al. 2004).<br />
Estimates for herbaceous and woody species derived by various methods are<br />
similarly low: for a Cecropia species, only 1.0 h day −1 ; Cleyela, 1.1 h day −1 ;<br />
Castilla, 1.5 h day −1 ; Annona, 1.9 h day −1 ; Urera, 2.5 h day −1 ; Helocarpus,<br />
2.6 h day −1 ; Polygtonatum, 2.7 h day −1 ; Fagus, 2.8 h day −1 ; Polygonum, 3.3 h day −1 ;<br />
Antirrhoea, 3.5 h day −1 ; Anacardium, 4.5 h day −1 ; and Luehea, 6.1 h day −1 (calculated<br />
from Kikuzawa et al. 2009; Kitajima et al. 1997, 2002; Ackerly and Bazzaz<br />
1995; Kikuzawa, unpublished data). The average <strong>of</strong> all these values is 2.9 h day −1 ,<br />
which raises some questions about the use <strong>of</strong> A max alone as a cardinal value for<br />
characterizing foliar function.
18 2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
Nonetheless, despite all the variability in photosynthetic rate through the day<br />
and across the growing season, there is in fact a surprisingly good correlation<br />
between the highest photosynthetic rate on a given day and the actual carbon gain<br />
on that day (Zots and Winter 1996; Rosati and DeJong 2003; Koyama and<br />
Kikuzawa 2009). Zots and Winter (1996) reported a linear relationship between<br />
daily photosynthetic gains <strong>of</strong> single leaves (A ) and their maximum photosynthetic<br />
day<br />
rate on a given day, Â (Fig. 2.9):<br />
max<br />
A = kA · ˆ + c<br />
(2.3)<br />
day max<br />
where k and c are constants. Note that if the value <strong>of</strong> Â max is in fact the true photosynthetic<br />
capacity (A ) and if c is zero, then the proportionality constant k equals<br />
max<br />
the leaf mean labor time. This relationship within days, however, does not assure<br />
that the highest photosynthetic rate achieved by a species under ideal conditions,<br />
its true photosynthetic capacity, A , will in turn correlate consistently with the<br />
max<br />
maximum photosynthetic rate ( Â max ) achieved on a given day. The value <strong>of</strong> the mean<br />
labor time concept as a complement to the concept <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity is<br />
that it emphasizes the necessity <strong>of</strong> identifying the true maximum photosynthetic<br />
rate for a species as opposed to a transient value associated with conditions over a<br />
given time interval.<br />
ˆ<br />
Fig. 2.9 The Aday − Amax<br />
relationship. The daily photosynthetic gain by a leaf (A , mmol m day −2<br />
12 h−1 ) on a given day plotted against the maximum net photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> the leaf on that day<br />
( Â ). Note that Â<br />
max<br />
max here is not the true value <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity (A ) for the species,<br />
max<br />
but only the highest photosynthetic rate on each day <strong>of</strong> observation. (From Zots and Winter 1996)
Age-Dependent Decline in Photosynthetic Capacity<br />
Age-Dependent Decline in Photosynthetic Capacity<br />
Once a leaf attains full photosynthetic capacity, A max then gradually decreases with<br />
leaf age (Hardwick et al. 1968; Jurik et al. 1979; Oren et al. 1986; Martin et al.<br />
1994; Mediavilla and Escudero 2003a; Castro-Diez et al. 2005; Warren 2006; Reich<br />
et al. 2009). In herbaceous plants with short-lived leaves, the decline is linear and<br />
relatively fast (Leopold and Kriedmann 1975; Šesták 1981; Hodanova 1981; Erley<br />
et al. 2002; Kikuzawa 2003). In deciduous broad-leaved trees, once full photosynthetic<br />
capacity is attained it is maintained fairly steady until immediately before<br />
leaffall and then declines quickly (Jurik 1986; Koike 1990), although in some Alnus<br />
and Betula species with fairly rapid leaf turnover the time trend is closer to that <strong>of</strong><br />
herbaceous species (Koike 1990; Kikuzawa 2003; Miyazawa and Kikuzawa 2004).<br />
Kitajima et al. (2002) also reported this fairly rapid linear decline in photosynthetic<br />
capacity associated with high leaf turnover in two early successional tropical trees<br />
in Panama (Fig. 2.10). In five trees with longer-lived leaves in this seasonally dry<br />
tropical forest, the decline in photosynthetic capacity with leaf age was more<br />
gradual (Kitajima et al. 1997), as was also the case for tropical species in a Costa<br />
Rican plantation (Hiremath 2000). Similarly, in evergreen conifers with longer-<br />
No. Distal Leaves A (µmol CO 2 .m −2.s −1 )<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
Cecropia Urera<br />
slope = −0.287**<br />
slope = 0.091*** slope = 0.145***<br />
slope = −0.191**<br />
0<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> Age since Full Expansion (d)<br />
Fig. 2.10 Linear decline in photosynthetic capacity associated with rapid growth and high leaf<br />
turnover in early successional Panamanian trees. d, days. (From Kitajima et al. 2002)<br />
19
20 2 Leaves: Evolution, Ontogeny, and Death<br />
lived leaves, there is a more gradual linear decline <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic rate with age<br />
(Matsumoto 1984; Koike et al. 1994). The general tendency is for photosynthetic<br />
capacity to decrease with leaf age, but the rate <strong>of</strong> decrease lessens as leaf longevity<br />
becomes greater (Fig. 2.11).<br />
There are two hypotheses to explain the decline <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity<br />
with time: (1) acclimation to the changing light regime <strong>of</strong> individual leaves as<br />
the canopy develops (Hikosaka 1998; Gan and Amasino 1997) and (2) diminished<br />
function resulting from age-related changes and senescence <strong>of</strong> foliar<br />
tissues (Guarente et al. 1998; Warren 2006). The two hypotheses are not mutually<br />
exclusive. Reduced insolation can induce translocation <strong>of</strong> nitrogen from a<br />
shaded, older leaf to a younger sunlit leaf (Hemminga et al. 1999), with consequent<br />
degradation <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic function in the older leaf. Even if the<br />
microenvironment around a leaf is stable over its lifetime, cumulative damage<br />
and reduced internal conductance <strong>of</strong> CO 2 (Hensel et al. 1993; Guarente et al.<br />
1998; Nooden 2004; Warren 2006) can lead to gradually lower photosynthetic<br />
capacity in older leaves.<br />
Photosynthetic decline rate, nmol /g/s/day<br />
10<br />
1<br />
0.1<br />
0.01<br />
10<br />
Ha<br />
Ki02<br />
Ps<br />
Po Ki02<br />
As Am<br />
Ah Ki97<br />
Bp<br />
Fc Ki97<br />
Ki97<br />
Ki97<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> days<br />
Ki97<br />
1000<br />
Fig. 2.11 Relationship between the rate <strong>of</strong> decline in photosynthetic capacity with time and leaf<br />
longevity. Data are for Acer mono (Am, Kikuzawa and Ackerly 1999), Alnus hirsuta (Ah, Kikuzawa<br />
and Ackerly 1999), Alnus sieboldiana (As, Kikuzawa 2003), five tropical tree species (Ki97,<br />
Kitajima et al. 1997), two tropical pioneer tree species (Ki02, Kitajima et al. 2002), Betula platyphylla<br />
(Bp, Kikuzawa and Ackerly 1999), Fagus crenata (Fc, Kikuzawa 2003), Heliocarpus<br />
appendiculatus (Ha, Ackerly and Bazzaz 1995), Polygonatum odoratum (Po, Kikuzawa 2003),<br />
and Polygonum sachalinensis (Ps, Kikuzawa 2003)<br />
100
Senescence and Abscission<br />
Senescence and Abscission<br />
Whatever may be the rate <strong>of</strong> gradual decline in photosynthetic capacity, there is a<br />
point in time for all leaves when much more rapid changes in both physiology and<br />
appearance mark their impending death and abscission (Vincent 2006; Lim et al.<br />
2007). <strong>Leaf</strong> senescence can be triggered by exogenous factors (seasonal changes in<br />
climate, pathogen attack, herbivory) or by endogenous factors (self-shading, fruiting).<br />
Whatever the trigger, senescence is intrinsically a process <strong>of</strong> genetically regulated<br />
degradation (Nam 1997; Weaver and Amasino 2001; Nooden 2004; Vincent 2006)<br />
involving upregulation <strong>of</strong> more than 800 genes (Lim et al. 2007). Senescence<br />
allows orderly preparations for seasonal changes in environmental conditions,<br />
including recovery <strong>of</strong> nutrients from senescing leaves and their recycling within the<br />
plant. Many senescence-associated genes encode proteins that accomplish parts <strong>of</strong><br />
the recycling program such as proteases, nucleases, and proteins involved in metal<br />
binding and transport (Guarente et al. 1998). Senescing foliage in broadleaf deciduous<br />
forests <strong>of</strong>ten colors as chlorophyll degrades, no longer masking yellow and orange<br />
secondary photosynthetic pigments, and as reddish anthocyanins are produced<br />
de novo (Lee et al. 2003; Ougham et al. 2005). Coloring during senescence in species<br />
with indeterminate shoot growth is weakly developed and usually initiated within<br />
the tree crown or in the lower canopy, whereas in species with determinate shoot<br />
growth coloring is strong and tends to occur first in the upper canopy (Koike 1990,<br />
2004). The anthocyanins confer a degree <strong>of</strong> protection against photooxidation <strong>of</strong><br />
systems involved in the orderly breakdown and recycling <strong>of</strong> materials from the<br />
senescing leaf (Pietrini et al. 2002). <strong>Leaf</strong> photosynthesis invariably declines<br />
strongly with the onset <strong>of</strong> senescence (Makino et al. 1983; Hidema et al. 1991;<br />
Hanba et al. 2004), and foliar nitrogen content decreases steadily as photosynthetic<br />
systems shut down (Mae 2004).<br />
21
Chapter 3<br />
Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Deciduous broad leaved-forest mixed with some conifers. Midori-numa, Daisetsu-san,<br />
Hokkaido, Japan<br />
Defining <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity and “leaf lifespan” are sometimes used as equivalent terms, and at other<br />
times “leaf longevity” designates the potential longevity <strong>of</strong> leaves and “leaf lifespan”<br />
their realized longevity. To keep things simple, we here consistently refer only to leaf<br />
longevity, qualifying the context as may be necessary. With an emphasis on times<br />
when a leaf can carry out its photosynthetic function, we define leaf longevity as the<br />
period from the emergence to the fall <strong>of</strong> a leaf. Because leaf development is a continuous<br />
process, a reasonably consistent operational definition <strong>of</strong> leaf appearance and<br />
leaffall is necessary. It is impractical to include the period <strong>of</strong> leaf initiation and early<br />
development before budburst in estimations <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity, and in any case these<br />
earliest stages in leaf development are not directly relevant to photosynthetic function<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_3, © Springer 2011<br />
23
24 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
(Vincent 2006). The onset <strong>of</strong> full photosynthetic function would be the most logical<br />
starting point from which to estimate leaf longevity, but this is not practical in broad<br />
comparative studies because <strong>of</strong> species-specific variation in the relation between foliar<br />
development and foliar function (Niinemets and Sack 2004). We generally resort to<br />
recording a phenophase consistent with records in phenological networks (Koch et al.<br />
2007; Morisette et al. 2009) that is associated with a late stage <strong>of</strong> foliar development,<br />
such as expansion and flattening <strong>of</strong> the leaf blade in broadleaf deciduous trees<br />
(Kikuzawa 1978). Similar uncertainties are involved in scoring the timing <strong>of</strong> leaffall.<br />
Senescence <strong>of</strong> fully formed leaves is generally more drawn out than budburst and early<br />
leaf development and hence is less amenable to timing precisely (Worrall 1999). <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
abscission, which might <strong>of</strong>fer an unambiguous terminal event, is <strong>of</strong>ten preceded by<br />
significant declines in photosynthetic capacity as leaves change color during senescence<br />
(Diemer et al. 1992; Hensel et al. 1993), and some trees retain dead leaves<br />
(marcesence: Abadia et al. 1996). Any scoring system based on changing color or even<br />
abscission also can be disrupted by a stress event such as an early freeze that abruptly<br />
kills leaves outright regardless <strong>of</strong> their degree <strong>of</strong> senescence or development <strong>of</strong> their<br />
abscission layer. We review here the common methods for estimating leaf longevity,<br />
touching on ways to minimize uncertainty associated with scoring leaf emergence and<br />
leaffall when that is possible for a given method.<br />
Box 3.1 Heterophylly<br />
(continued)
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover on Shoots<br />
Box 3.1 (continued)<br />
Heterophylly refers to conspicuous differences in shape, size, or function<br />
among the leaves on a plant. For example, the leaves that appear on a shoot <strong>of</strong><br />
Cercidiphyllum japonicum early in the season are round and heart shaped at<br />
the base, but those appearing later in the season are flat at the base and more<br />
triangular in shape. Such early and late leaves <strong>of</strong>ten differ not only in shape<br />
but also in longevity and physiological function.<br />
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover on Shoots<br />
The shoot is the modular unit <strong>of</strong> leaf production, and hence the natural focus for<br />
sampling coherent sets <strong>of</strong> observations to derive estimates <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity.<br />
Monitoring the emergence and fall <strong>of</strong> leaves on a particular shoot at frequent<br />
intervals over an extended time period is the definitive method for estimating leaf<br />
longevity. Counts <strong>of</strong> leaves are usually recorded at the midpoint <strong>of</strong> census intervals,<br />
so the more frequent the observations, the more precise is the estimate <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
longevity. Frequent counts <strong>of</strong> all the leaves on a shoot are tedious, but the accumulated<br />
data are highly informative. The method gives a complete record <strong>of</strong> temporal<br />
variation in leaf production and leaf longevity, which can be especially important<br />
for species with indeterminate shoot growth (Fig. 3.1). Since the date <strong>of</strong> emergence<br />
and the date <strong>of</strong> fall are known for each individual leaf, both the mean and the variance<br />
in leaf longevity can be calculated. These demographic data can be reworked to<br />
describe the probability <strong>of</strong> leaffall as a function <strong>of</strong> leaf age (Dungan et al. 2003).<br />
Seasonal or interannual differences in leaf longevity or differences between early<br />
and late leaves in heterophyllous species can also be analyzed by partitioning the<br />
data accordingly. In principle, a census can be carried out over many years, but in<br />
practice this approach <strong>of</strong>ten is restricted to observations within a growing season.<br />
Data most commonly are summarized initially in a leaf survival curve (Fig. 3.2),<br />
which can illustrate in detail the differences in leaf demography that underlie the<br />
calculation <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. The total number <strong>of</strong> leaf-days (the area under the<br />
curve showing the number <strong>of</strong> living leaves) divided by the total number <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
produced is the mean leaf longevity over the period <strong>of</strong> observation, which typically<br />
would be one complete growing season (Kikuzawa 1983).<br />
There are various alternative calculations for estimating the mean leaf longevity<br />
from a census <strong>of</strong> the numbers <strong>of</strong> leaves emerging and falling over a time interval.<br />
A graphical framework introduced by Navas et al. (2003) helps us to understand the<br />
ways that the relative timing <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and leaffall can affect estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
mean leaf longevity. If for simplicity the increase (leaf emergence) and decrease<br />
(leaffall) in numbers <strong>of</strong> leaves are approximated by straight lines over time, then<br />
leaf longevity (L) can be considered in a graphical framework (Fig. 3.3) linked to<br />
the following equation (Navas et al. 2003):<br />
( )<br />
25<br />
L = tp + tL / 2 + t<br />
(3.1)
26 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Fig. 3.1 Shoots <strong>of</strong> Alnus hirsuta in Bibai, Hokkaido, northern Japan, in mid-June (a) and in early<br />
July (b). By mid-June four leaves (1–4) have fully expanded and a fifth leaf (5) has protruded from<br />
the pair <strong>of</strong> bracts and is just beginning photosynthetic activity. By early July, more leaves have<br />
been produced (6–8) and the first and the second leaves (1, 2) have fallen. There are two leaf scars<br />
and six leaves (third to eighth) on the shoot; the ninth leaf is just appearing, but because it is still<br />
enclosed by bracts it is not yet counted (Kikuzawa 1980)<br />
Fig. 3.2 <strong>Leaf</strong> survival curves for representative deciduous broad-leaved trees: Alnus hirsuta (a),<br />
Magnolia obovata (b), and Quercus mongolica var. grosseserrata (c). Open circles represent the<br />
cumulative number <strong>of</strong> leaves that have emerged through the growing season; closed circles begin<br />
with the onset <strong>of</strong> leaffall and track the number <strong>of</strong> leaves still attached at each subsequent census.<br />
The mean leaf longevity over the period <strong>of</strong> observation is the area under the line showing the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> attached leaves divided by the total number <strong>of</strong> emerged leaves
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover on Shoots<br />
Cumulated number <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
produced or lost<br />
a<br />
A<br />
La<br />
Lb<br />
Lc<br />
E<br />
B<br />
F G<br />
C<br />
Lc<br />
tP t<br />
tP t<br />
tL tL<br />
Time <strong>of</strong> leaf production or loss (d) Time <strong>of</strong> leaf production or loss (d)<br />
c<br />
A C<br />
Lb<br />
E<br />
H<br />
B<br />
La<br />
D A C<br />
B D<br />
tP t<br />
tL Time <strong>of</strong> leaf production or loss (d)<br />
where t p is the duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence (i.e., the time from the<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the first leaf to the last), t L is the duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong> leaffall<br />
(i.e., the time from the first fallen leaf to the last), and t is the length <strong>of</strong> the period<br />
from the end <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence to the start <strong>of</strong> leaffall when leaf numbers are stable.<br />
If leaffall starts within the period <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence (i.e., the leaf emergence line<br />
and leaffall line overlap), then t is scored as a negative value. Craine et al. (1999)<br />
adopt essentially the same framework. When leaf longevity is too long for the<br />
continuous observation <strong>of</strong> all the leaves on a shoot to be practical from emergence<br />
b<br />
G<br />
D<br />
E G<br />
Fig. 3.3 A framework for assessing the determinants <strong>of</strong> variation in leaf longevity (after Navas<br />
et al. 2003). The panels illustrate different patterns for the relative timing <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and<br />
leaffall. This graphical framework relates the duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence (t p , the time<br />
from the appearance <strong>of</strong> the first leaf to the last), the duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong> leaffall (t L , the<br />
time from the first fallen leaf to the last), and the length <strong>of</strong> the stable period t from the end <strong>of</strong><br />
leaf emergence to the start <strong>of</strong> leaffall. If leaffall starts within the period <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence (i.e., the leaf<br />
emergence line and leaffall line overlap), then t is scored as a negative value. (a) The case when<br />
there is a time interval between the periods <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and leaffall. (b), (c) Cases in which<br />
the emergence and fall <strong>of</strong> leaves overlap in time: t is long in (b) but short in (c). In (b), t p and t L<br />
are equivalent, but in (c) t L is far longer than t p , L a , L b , and L c in (a) indicate the leaves in the same<br />
cohort having different longevity as a result <strong>of</strong> differences in the timing <strong>of</strong> leaffall. Symbols and<br />
calculations are explained further in the text<br />
H<br />
27
28 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
to fall, we can calculate leaf longevity based on observations over any reasonable<br />
interval (Williams et al. 1989) by using this equation:<br />
( 2 / ( 2 1) / )( 2 1)<br />
L = N d− N −N b t − t<br />
(3.2)<br />
where N 1 is the standing number <strong>of</strong> leaves at the initial observation (t 1 ), N 2 is the sum<br />
<strong>of</strong> N 1 and newly produced leaves during t 2 − t 1 , d is the rate <strong>of</strong> leaffall during the observation<br />
period t 2 − t 1 , and b is the rate <strong>of</strong> leaf production during this period. When<br />
N 2 − N 1 is equal to b, this can be reduced to the following equation (Fonseca 1994):<br />
( 1 ) / 1)(<br />
2 1)<br />
L = N + b d− t − t<br />
(3.3)<br />
These equations assume stable leaf numbers during the period <strong>of</strong> observation,<br />
which allows leaf longevity to be estimated using either the leaf production rate or<br />
the rate <strong>of</strong> leaffall. If b = d in either equation, then leaf longevity can be estimated<br />
even more simply as follows (Southwood et al. 1986; Navas et al. 2003):<br />
L = N1/ d<br />
(3.4)<br />
where t 2 − t 1 is 1 (year, month, day, etc.). In a situation in which the number <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves fluctuates somewhat around an essentially stable state within the period <strong>of</strong><br />
observation, King (1994) provides an alternative version <strong>of</strong> (3.4) utilizing the average<br />
number <strong>of</strong> leaves (N av ) instead <strong>of</strong> the initial leaf number (N 1 ):<br />
( 2 1) av ( 0.5(<br />
)<br />
L = t − t N / b+ d<br />
(3.5)<br />
Finally, consider (3.2)–(3.5) in relationship to the graphical framework (see<br />
Fig. 3.3) introduced by Navas et al. (2003). Because b = N/t and d = N/t, the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaves (N i ) at any time t i is given by<br />
and leaf longevity by<br />
i i i<br />
{ ( p ) }<br />
N = bt −dt − t + t<br />
(3.6)<br />
( ) p<br />
L = N / d = b/ d− 1 ti+ t + t<br />
(3.7)<br />
If b = d, (3.7) reduces to L = t p + t, which is the same as (3.1) from Navas et al.<br />
(2003). These various calculations <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity are all variants on a theme that<br />
arise in the juxtaposition <strong>of</strong> alternative sampling designs and interspecific contrasts<br />
in leaf demography. All the calculations use data on the relative timing <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
emergence and leaffall in different demographic scenarios that can be visualized in<br />
the graphical framework introduced by Navas et al. (2003).<br />
In all the calculations <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity based on repeated census <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence<br />
and leaffall, the precision <strong>of</strong> the leaf longevity estimate ultimately depends<br />
on the census interval. The longer the interval between observations, the less<br />
precise will be the estimate <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. Leaves may emerge or fall at any
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover on Shoots<br />
time in the period between intervals, so the common practice <strong>of</strong> referencing the<br />
data to the day midway between two sequential observations can introduce<br />
considerable error as the observation interval increases beyond a week. Up to<br />
about a week the uncertainty in the timing <strong>of</strong> leaffall or emergence is <strong>of</strong> the order<br />
<strong>of</strong> the few days potential error associated with the intrinsic ambiguity in observations<br />
<strong>of</strong> the phenophases themselves. In a study <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and fall on<br />
the shoots <strong>of</strong> trees observed at intervals as long as a month, Dungan et al. (2003)<br />
introduced an approach to minimizing the error associated with longer intervals<br />
between observations. They observed shoots at weekly or biweekly intervals<br />
early in the seasons, so that they could fit their observations on leaf production<br />
and mortality to sigmoid growth functions. These functions can be combined to<br />
estimate the number <strong>of</strong> living leaves at any time, including times between actual<br />
observations. Fitting their leaf survivorship data to a gamma function, Dungan<br />
et al. (2003) then used failure-time analysis to estimate the probability that a leaf<br />
would survive to any given day after budburst and report leaf longevity as the<br />
age at which the probability <strong>of</strong> a leaf dying reaches 50%, the leaf half-life.<br />
Strictly speaking the leaf half-life and mean leaf longevity may not be perfectly<br />
identical because <strong>of</strong> seasonal changes in half-life, but when leaf longevity is<br />
longer than about 80 days it appears that half-life can provide a convenient<br />
surrogate for mean leaf longevity (Diemer 1998a; Dungan et al. 2003). A reanalysis<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Navas (2003) data confirmed the utility <strong>of</strong> this method and showed it to<br />
be more accurate than estimates based on the midpoint between consecutive<br />
observations (Dungan et al. 2008).<br />
Box 3.2 <strong>Leaf</strong> Cohort<br />
Some plants produce leaves sequentially through the growing season, others<br />
all at once in a single episode early in the growing season. Any leaves emerging<br />
together at some time form an even-aged cohort: these may be all the leaves<br />
that will be produced in a year or just those produced at one time by a sequential<br />
leafing species. Following the death <strong>of</strong> individual leaves in a cohort over<br />
time provides a survivorship curve, which <strong>of</strong>ten yields insights into foliar<br />
function and canopy architecture. In successive leafing species, multiple<br />
cohorts <strong>of</strong> leaves coexist on the plant at any time in the season, each cohort<br />
following its own survivorship curve. A cohort produced early in the growing<br />
season has older leaves than a cohort produced in midseason, and more leaves<br />
in the older cohort may have senesced and fallen by the time the midseason<br />
cohort leaves emerge. In other words, in successive leafing species the leaves<br />
on a plant are multiaged, and the total number <strong>of</strong> leaves at any time in the<br />
season is the difference between all the leaves that have emerged across all<br />
cohorts and those that have fallen.<br />
29
30 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from Census <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
Cohorts over Time<br />
The primary alternative to following the emergence and fall <strong>of</strong> leaves on shoots is<br />
to focus on the leaves themselves, following the fate <strong>of</strong> cohorts <strong>of</strong> leaves over time.<br />
Whether estimates <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity are derived by shoot- or cohort-based methods,<br />
the calculations depend fundamentally on records <strong>of</strong> the birth and death <strong>of</strong> leaves.<br />
The cohort approach adapts methods <strong>of</strong> life table analysis well established in population<br />
biology (Krebs 2008) that provide estimates not only <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity but<br />
also age-dependent leaf mortality rates. The approach <strong>of</strong> Dungan et al. (2003) can<br />
be used in shoot-based studies to derive age-dependent probabilities for leaf death<br />
as well. The distinction between shoot-based and cohort-based approaches to estimating<br />
leaf longevity has more to do with context and sampling design than with<br />
any fundamental difference in the basis for estimation <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. Both<br />
dynamic and static sampling designs can be used in cohort-based estimates <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
longevity (Krebs 2008).<br />
Estimates in dynamic analyses are derived by following single cohorts <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
from birth to death, which may impose a long and arduous sampling program. For<br />
example, Xiao (2003) provides an example <strong>of</strong> a dynamic life table analysis based<br />
on following a cohort <strong>of</strong> 1,000 leaves <strong>of</strong> Pinus tabulaeformis at annual intervals<br />
over a 5-year period (Table 3.1). The first column in the resulting life table records<br />
leaf age in years, with age zero denoting the start <strong>of</strong> the census. The second column,<br />
l x , is the number <strong>of</strong> the initial cohort surviving at age x. The third column, d x , is the<br />
mortality during age x, which is given by (l x - l x+1 ). L x , the average <strong>of</strong> l x between two<br />
needle ages, is given by (l x + l x+1 )/2, and defines the height <strong>of</strong> the histogram in<br />
Fig. 3.5. T x is the summation <strong>of</strong> L x from the older to younger age, which is equivalent<br />
to the area <strong>of</strong> the histogram, T x = T x+1 + L x . T x divided by l x represents the average<br />
expected life at age x. The line in Fig. 3.5 is the l x curve, which illustrates the survivorship<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 1,000 leaves over time. The average life expectancy at age zero is<br />
the mean longevity <strong>of</strong> leaves. In the case <strong>of</strong> this pine species, the mean leaf longevity<br />
Table 3.1 Dynamic life table for needles <strong>of</strong> Pinus tabulaeformis<br />
(after Xiao 2003)<br />
Age (years) l x d x L x T x e x<br />
0 1,000 240 880 2,000 2.00<br />
1 760 282 619 1,120 1.47<br />
2 478 246 355 501 1.05<br />
3 232 205 130 146 0.63<br />
4 27 24 15 16 0.59<br />
5 3 3 1 1 0.33<br />
l x , The number <strong>of</strong> the initial cohort surviving at age x; d x , the mortality<br />
during age x; L x , the average <strong>of</strong> l x between two needle ages; T x ,<br />
the summation <strong>of</strong> L x from older to younger age; e x , the average<br />
expected life at age x
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from Census <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Cohorts over Time<br />
is 2.0 years. Graphically, this is equivalent to the total area <strong>of</strong> the annual histograms<br />
divided by the initial leaf number, which is essentially the same as the method<br />
shown in Figs. 3.2 and 3.3.<br />
Such long-running observation series intended for a dynamic life table analysis<br />
sometimes are stopped for practical reasons when half the leaf cohort has died<br />
(Kohyama 1980; Diemer 1998a,b); truncating the observations precludes calculation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the age-dependent probabilities <strong>of</strong> leaf death, but the observed leaf half-life<br />
provides a useful estimate <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity in its own right (Diemer 1998a; Dungan<br />
et al. 2003). On the other hand, the dynamic life table approach applies equally well<br />
to short series <strong>of</strong> observations over days, weeks, or months rather than years. Miyaji<br />
and Tagawa (1973, 1979) constructed dynamic life tables for leaves <strong>of</strong> Tilia japonica<br />
and Phaseolus vulgaris, both species with short-lived leaves. The longer observations<br />
continue, the more risk that dynamic life table analyses will be confounded<br />
by stochastic variation in the risk <strong>of</strong> mortality across the years <strong>of</strong> observation.<br />
Dynamic life table analyses are not only confounded by stochastic variation but<br />
also biased by differential rates <strong>of</strong> leaf mortality in better versus worse leaf<br />
microenvironments (Takenaka 2003). Thus even if leaves are selected randomly to<br />
establish the sampled cohort, the sample will concentrate into “better” places over<br />
time. Static life table analyses are not immune to the problem <strong>of</strong> stochastic interannual<br />
variation, but they do not suffer this sampling bias.<br />
The data required for static life table analyses are gathered in one round <strong>of</strong><br />
sampling, which makes this approach logistically appealing. Static life table<br />
analyses do not follow a single leaf cohort over its lifetime but instead reconstruct<br />
the life table from different aged cohorts <strong>of</strong> leaves observed at a point in time.<br />
Unfortunately, the record <strong>of</strong> growth cycles in tropical regions usually is too obscure<br />
or ambiguous to apply the static life table approach with confidence. In tropical<br />
forests, the number <strong>of</strong> leaves on a branch whorl does give information about leaf<br />
emergence pattern, but the seasonal timing <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence is not fixed in species<br />
or even on branches in a single tree (Kikuzawa et al. 1998). For example, in<br />
Araucaria araucana the mean interval between successive whorls was not exactly<br />
1 year, and varied among individual trees depending on their light regime (Lusk and<br />
Le-Quesne 2000). On the other hand, the required sampling is relatively easy to<br />
apply with evergreen trees in boreal and temperate regions where the basic approach<br />
has a long history <strong>of</strong> use (Pease 1917). In these strongly seasonal climates, clearly<br />
visible terminal bud scars typically demarcate annual growth increments along the<br />
shoot (Fig. 3.4); it is easy to reconstruct the ages <strong>of</strong> growth segments along a<br />
branch, and hence the age <strong>of</strong> the leaves on each segment. We then can infer the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> leaves in each annual cohort by counting the number <strong>of</strong> leaves still<br />
attached and the number <strong>of</strong> leaf scars left by fallen leaves in each shoot growth<br />
increment. This static approach, however, assumes no year-to-year variation in leaf<br />
demographic parameters, which can be problematic because <strong>of</strong> interannual climatic<br />
variation, age-dependent loss <strong>of</strong> leaves to herbivory, or trade-<strong>of</strong>fs in resource<br />
allocation between production and reproduction. Kayama et al. (2002), for example,<br />
found this assumption did not hold for some evergreen conifers. Interannual<br />
variation can also confound leaf longevity estimates from a dynamic life table<br />
31
32 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Current Shoot<br />
1-year Leaves<br />
2-year Leaves<br />
Fig. 3.4 Number <strong>of</strong> leaves in annual whorls <strong>of</strong> shoot growth in Osmanthus chinensis, a broadleaf<br />
ornamental evergreen tree in Japan<br />
Fig. 3.5 Decline in initial<br />
cohort <strong>of</strong> needles over time<br />
(in Xiao 2003; drawn by KK<br />
after Xiao)<br />
analysis, as it would in a shoot-based analysis <strong>of</strong> species with long-lived leaves as<br />
well. In all the census methods for estimating leaf longevity, error variance inevitably<br />
increases with leaf longevity.
Estimating <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from Census <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Cohorts over Time<br />
Box 3.3 Allocation and Partitioning <strong>of</strong> Resources<br />
Both the products <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis and the mineral resources available<br />
for plant growth are in finite supply. Hence, there inevitably are limits<br />
and trade-<strong>of</strong>fs imposed on plant function. Carbohydrates and mineral<br />
resources used in growth are not available for reproduction. Plants partition<br />
resources differentially to satisfy competing demands, with the result<br />
that cumulative allocations to plant parts differ. For example, biomass<br />
allocated to leaves, stems, roots, flowers, and fruits arise in the partitioning<br />
<strong>of</strong> net primary production (NPP) and reflects trade-<strong>of</strong>fs imposed<br />
by the requirements for survival and reproduction in a given environmental<br />
regime.<br />
Box 3.4 Allometry and Isometry<br />
The form and function <strong>of</strong> organisms can vary with their size. For example,<br />
the allocations to root, stem, and leaves can shift with total plant size. Such<br />
size-dependent changes can be expressed by a power function <strong>of</strong> the form<br />
A = aW b where A is a measure <strong>of</strong> some aspect <strong>of</strong> form or function, W is an<br />
appropriate measure <strong>of</strong> size, and a and b are allometric constants. This equation<br />
is mathematically equivalent to log (A) = log (a) + b log (W), which<br />
graphs as a straight line. If b is exactly unity, then A is directly proportional<br />
to W and the relationship is said to be isometric. In an isometric relationship,<br />
a tw<strong>of</strong>old increase in size results in a tw<strong>of</strong>old increase in form or function.<br />
In many biological cases, however, form and function change<br />
disproportionately with size: b is not unity and the relationship is said to be<br />
allometric. For example, allometric relationships are used in forest science<br />
to estimate the biomass <strong>of</strong> standing trees. The biomass <strong>of</strong> entire trees (W) or<br />
their parts such as leaves (W L ), branches (W B ), stems (W S ), or roots (W R ) all<br />
are correlated to measures <strong>of</strong> body size such as trunk diameter at breast<br />
height (D) and tree height (H). Using the equation W = aD b , we can estimate<br />
the total biomass <strong>of</strong> a tree simply by measuring its diameter at breast height.<br />
Species differ in the degree to which their total biomass changes disproportionately<br />
with size, but in all cases the relationship is allometric and b is less<br />
than unity.<br />
33
34 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Estimation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> from <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover<br />
at the Stand Level<br />
Litter traps set on the forest understorey <strong>of</strong> Alnus japonica (Hakusan, Ishikawa, Japan)<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity is occasionally estimated as the inverse <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover rates at the<br />
stand level. <strong>Leaf</strong> biomass, estimated by allometric methods (Clark et al. 2001) and<br />
assumed to be in steady state, is compared to the biomass <strong>of</strong> falling leaves collected<br />
in leaf traps (Tadaki 1965; Edwards and Grubb 1977; Oshima 1977;<br />
Kikuzawa et al. 1984; Takiya et al. 2006). Under the assumption <strong>of</strong> steady-state<br />
leaf numbers in the canopy, leaf longevity can be estimated as the inverse <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> leaf biomass (g m −2 ) to annual leaffall adjusted for the length <strong>of</strong> the<br />
growing season. For example, the standing leaf biomass in an Alnus inokumae<br />
plantation was 163 g m −2 , while annual total leaf fall was 315 g m −2 during a<br />
growing season (Kikuzawa et al. 1984). This finding indicates a leaf turnover rate<br />
<strong>of</strong> about 2 over the season, and hence an average leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> the order <strong>of</strong> 93<br />
days, about one-half the length <strong>of</strong> the growing season. There are, however, serious<br />
problems with this method. First, from a practical point <strong>of</strong> view the approach is<br />
too time consuming to acquire species-specific estimates except in monospecific<br />
stands. Second, the assumption <strong>of</strong> steady-state leaf biomass is commonly unrealistic.<br />
Third, the variance associated with the allometric estimates <strong>of</strong> canopy biomass<br />
will <strong>of</strong>ten be <strong>of</strong> the order <strong>of</strong> magnitude as the biomass <strong>of</strong> fallen leaves. Fourth, the<br />
biomass <strong>of</strong> individual leaves at abscission is not equal to their biomass in the<br />
canopy. This method <strong>of</strong> estimating leaf longevity is best avoided in comparisons<br />
at the species level.
Revisiting the Basic Concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 3.5 Photoinhibition<br />
The photosynthetic systems in leaves have two basic components, one utilizing<br />
chlorophyll and various accessory pigments to capture solar energy, and the<br />
other a series <strong>of</strong> biochemical pathways that uses the captured energy to build<br />
carbohydrates with carbon derived from atmospheric carbon dioxide. When a<br />
leaf is constructed, these two systems are created in ways suited to the environmental<br />
regime in which the leaf will function as a photosynthetic organ.<br />
Photoinhibition arises when transient environmental conditions lead to more<br />
solar energy being captured than can be utilized in the biosynthetic reactions.<br />
For example, this can occur in winter for evergreen shrubs in the forest understory<br />
when photosynthetic enzymes are inactive consequent to low temperature,<br />
but high light levels occur in the usually shaded forest understory because<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaffall in a deciduous forest canopy (Miyazawa and Kikuzawa 2004, 2006;<br />
Miyazawa et al. 2007).<br />
Revisiting the Basic Concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
In ending this chapter, we return to the concept <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity itself, which loses<br />
its close functional connection to photosynthesis when leaves survive periods unfavorable<br />
to photosynthetic activity such as winter in high latitudes or periods <strong>of</strong> severe<br />
drought. Considering seasonal variation in conditions favorable to photosynthesis,<br />
we have proposed a concept <strong>of</strong> functional leaf longevity (Kikuzawa and Lechowicz<br />
2006). Functional leaf longevity is the number <strong>of</strong> days when a leaf can actually carry<br />
out photosynthesis over its lifetime. In principle, functional leaf longevity is defined<br />
as leaf longevity minus unfavorable days (winter or dry season) during the leaf lifetime.<br />
In leaves <strong>of</strong> deciduous trees or annuals in temperate regions, functional leaf<br />
longevity is generally the same as leaf longevity. In other instances, a favorable<br />
period within a year can be unambiguously defined and recognized. This is the<br />
case for arctic and alpine species associated with snowbeds; the period when plants<br />
are snow covered is considered to be unfavorable for photosynthesis, although some<br />
light penetrates snow to about 30 cm (Starr and Oberbauer 2003). For example,<br />
Kudo (1992) examined the effect <strong>of</strong> differences in favorable period created naturally<br />
by the timing <strong>of</strong> snowmelt on the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> dwarf evergreen and summergreen<br />
plants on Mt. Daisetsu, central Hokkaido. The snow-free period varied tw<strong>of</strong>old,<br />
from 60 to 120 days year −1 , depending on topographically induced variation in<br />
snow depth. In the case <strong>of</strong> other evergreen species, <strong>of</strong>ten it is not as easy to evaluate<br />
functional leaf longevity because some evergreen leaves do photosynthesize during<br />
winter. For example, understory evergreen plants in winter may suffer photoinhibition<br />
(Miyazawa et al. 2007) but still are photosynthetically active in what might at<br />
first be considered an unfavorable season. Camellia japonica, an understory evergreen<br />
tree in the deciduous forests <strong>of</strong> central Japan, actually has higher daily photosynthesis<br />
in winter than summer when the deciduous canopy is leafless (Miyazawa<br />
35
36 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
and Kikuzawa 2004, 2006). Deciding general criteria for defining an unfavorable<br />
period caused by drought is no less straightforward than for winter cold. The different<br />
phenological adaptations <strong>of</strong> species can affect variation in the degree <strong>of</strong> unfavorable<br />
conditions for photosynthesis even among co-occurring species. For example,<br />
an unfavorable period resulting from drought in Australia has been defined as the<br />
occurrence <strong>of</strong> at least 3 consecutive months with less than 25 (or 50) mm precipitation<br />
(Eamus and Prior 2001). Eamus et al. (1999b) compared photosynthetic rates<br />
throughout a year for some tree species in a seasonal tropical forest subject to an<br />
unfavorable dry season under this criterion. Two evergreen species (Eucalyptus tetrodonta,<br />
Eucalyptus miniata) showed relatively stable photosynthetic rates with only<br />
modest declines in the dry season. In contrast, decline in the photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves retained during the dry season on semideciduous Erythrophleum chlorostachys<br />
was greater, and in fully drought deciduous species such as Cochlospermum<br />
fraseri and Terminalia ferdinandiana was zero because they are leafless. Despite<br />
these complications, in principle it makes sense to discount leaf longevity for periods<br />
unfavorable to photosynthetic activity.<br />
Available data suggest there also are some unappreciated and potentially useful<br />
linkages between functional leaf longevity and gross primary production at the<br />
ecosystem level (Kikuzawa and Lechowicz 2006); this is apparent in the relationship<br />
between the standing biomass <strong>of</strong> foliage and foliage longevity estimated as<br />
the inverse <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover in diverse seasonal and aseasonal forests (Fig. 3.6).<br />
Considering the traditional definition <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity without regard to favorable<br />
or unfavorable conditions for photosynthesis, then leaf production rates (the slope<br />
<strong>of</strong> this relationship) in forests from seasonal and aseasonal climates appear to<br />
Fig. 3.6 Evidence that functional leaf longevity can provide a clearer relationship to ecosystem<br />
function than leaf longevity uncorrected for time unsuitable for photosynthetic activity (Kikuzawa<br />
and Lechowicz 2006). Left: Relationship <strong>of</strong> standing leaf biomass and leaf longevity in diverse<br />
forests; the slopes differ significantly between aseasonal and seasonal forests. Right: The difference<br />
in slopes is no longer significant when functional leaf longevity is considered. Closed circles,<br />
aseasonal forest; open circles, seasonal forest
Revisiting the Basic Concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
different significantly. However, if we discount periods in the seasonal climate<br />
unfavorable for photosynthetic activity, then the rate <strong>of</strong> leaf production in the<br />
system is not appreciably different between regions (Fig. 3.6).<br />
This conceptually simple adjustment in gauging the longevity <strong>of</strong> leaves has<br />
interesting implications for estimating the photosynthetic production at the ecosystem<br />
level. Gross primary production can be expressed as the product <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
biomass and average photosynthetic capacity rate over the favorable season:<br />
P = k · B · Amean · d<br />
37<br />
(3.8)<br />
where P is gross primary production (g m −2 year −1 ), B is leaf biomass (g m −2 ), A mean<br />
is the average maximum photosynthetic rate (A max ) over the favorable season, and<br />
d is the duration (s year −1 ) <strong>of</strong> the favorable season and k is a constant. The duration<br />
can be partitioned into duration within a day (mean labor time, m h day −1 ) and<br />
duration within a year (days in which plants can carry out photosynthesis within a<br />
year, the favorable period length, f days year −1 ).<br />
d = m · f<br />
(3.9)<br />
Here we incorporate functional leaf longevity L f into (3.8), multiply the right-hand<br />
side <strong>of</strong> (3.8) by (L f /L f = 1), and substitute (3.9) into (3.8) to obtain:<br />
( )<br />
P k B/ L · A m · L · f<br />
= f mean f<br />
(3.10)<br />
The first term in (3.10), B/L f , is the rate <strong>of</strong> daily leaf production; this is not so appreciably<br />
different among forests (Fig. 3.6). The next term, A mean m · L f , is the lifetime<br />
photosynthetic gain by a single leaf. Thus, gross primary production (GPP) <strong>of</strong> a plant<br />
community potentially can be expressed simply as the product <strong>of</strong> only three terms:<br />
( ) (<br />
× ( favorable period length)<br />
)<br />
GPP = Life time gain by a leaf × daily leaf production rate<br />
(3.11)<br />
If lifetime photosynthetic gain for individual leaves can be taken as a constant<br />
across species, then gross primary production could be determined simply by the<br />
length <strong>of</strong> favorable period (f ). These rather remarkable, if speculative, possibilities<br />
are not without support in published data. Kira (1969) summarized the gross<br />
primary production data <strong>of</strong> forests in the world and concluded that gross primary<br />
production can be explained by the leaf area index (LAI) and the length <strong>of</strong> growing<br />
season (Kira 1970). Here, LAI is the total leaf area per unit land area <strong>of</strong> the forest<br />
and is equivalent to the product <strong>of</strong> leaf biomass and specific leaf area (SLA: m 2 g −1 ).<br />
The length <strong>of</strong> the growing season is the favorable period length (f ). When we plot<br />
the relationship between gross primary production and favorable period length<br />
using Kira’s data, we obtain a significant relationship (see Fig. 3.7), suggesting the<br />
strong contribution <strong>of</strong> f in determining gross primary production. Whether or not<br />
these possibilities are sustained by further work, it is clear that the functional linkages<br />
between leaf longevity and ecosystem productivity merit close investigation.
38 3 Quantifying <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Fig. 3.7 Relationship<br />
between gross primary production<br />
<strong>of</strong> forests and the<br />
favorable period length. Data<br />
were plotted from those <strong>of</strong><br />
Kira (1969)<br />
Box 3.6 <strong>Leaf</strong> Construction Cost<br />
The construction <strong>of</strong> leaves requires investments not only in materials but also<br />
in the energy required to acquire those materials and assemble the leaf. The<br />
constituent elements <strong>of</strong> the diverse chemicals in a leaf were acquired and<br />
assembled into foliar tissues at some cost in respiratory energy, which in turn<br />
was acquired through photosynthesis. Net primary productivity is essentially a<br />
measure <strong>of</strong> the photosynthetic gains that accrue from investments in leaves, so<br />
it only makes sense to measure the cost <strong>of</strong> those investments in a unit linked<br />
directly to photosynthesis. Thus, leaf construction cost is usually quantified by<br />
an estimate <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> glucose (the immediate product <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis)<br />
required to construct a unit quantity (1 g or 1 m 2 ) <strong>of</strong> leaf tissue.<br />
Estimating the material cost <strong>of</strong> the carbon in a leaf is fairly straightforward<br />
because leaf tissues typically are about 50% carbon. Because glucose is 40%<br />
carbon, at least 1.2 g glucose can provide the carbon needed to construct each<br />
gram <strong>of</strong> leaf tissue. The more difficult problem is estimating the additional<br />
respiratory energy involved in acquiring other foliar constituents and actually<br />
assembling the leaf. These energy components include, for example, the<br />
respiratory costs <strong>of</strong> acquiring nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and<br />
other mineral elements contained in biochemicals critical to leaf function<br />
such as chlorophyll and photosynthetic enzymes. There are two approaches to<br />
this problem: one is based on measurements <strong>of</strong> respiration <strong>of</strong> growing leaves<br />
and the other on analysis <strong>of</strong> the constituents <strong>of</strong> leaf tissue. Although it can be<br />
technically difficult, one can measure the respiration associated with growing<br />
leaves (Merino et al. 1982), which can be partitioned into components<br />
(continued)
Revisiting the Basic Concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 3.6 (continued)<br />
proportional to growth rate (dW/dt) and leaf weight (W): R = r (dW/dt) + uW.<br />
Then, the parameter r multiplied by the final leaf mass gives an estimate <strong>of</strong> the<br />
respiratory energy used for construction <strong>of</strong> the leaf. Alternatively, in principle<br />
one can identify and quantify all the biochemical components <strong>of</strong> a leaf and<br />
sum up their individual costs <strong>of</strong> construction (Penning de Vries et al. 1974),<br />
but this is not very practical. A more practical variant on this approach, which<br />
has proven reliable, estimates the energy required to construct a leaf by measuring<br />
the energy released on combustion <strong>of</strong> the leaf tissue (Williams et al.<br />
1989; Griffin 1994).<br />
39
Chapter 4<br />
Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> scars <strong>of</strong> Alnus japonica<br />
Costs and Benefits <strong>of</strong> the Evergreen Versus Deciduous Habit<br />
The approach to theoretical work on leaf longevity is inspired by optimization<br />
models that came into vogue during the late 1960s to try to understand alternative<br />
modes <strong>of</strong> adaptation (Lewontin 1978). Reasoning in this conceptual framework<br />
and reviewing available data, Chabot and Hicks (1982) argued that leaves with<br />
higher construction cost should be longer lived because the period <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic<br />
gains to pay back the construction cost will be longer than for a leaf constructed<br />
at less cost. Using seven Mexican shrubs in the genus Piper (Piperaceae),<br />
Williams et al. (1989) set out to test this idea that leaf longevity should be determined<br />
by the time required for a leaf to pay back the costs <strong>of</strong> its construction. They<br />
found that, in contrast to Chabot and Hick’s supposition, leaf construction cost<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_4, © Springer 2011<br />
41
42 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
was negatively correlated with leaf longevity, not positively. Because construction<br />
costs measured as g[glucose]·g[leaf] −1 varied relatively little among their seven<br />
Piper species, only 1.2–1.6 g g −1 , they also examined the correlation <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
longevity and leaf mass per unit area (LMA, g m −2 ), another presumed indicator<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf construction cost. The LMA <strong>of</strong> the Piper species had manifold greater<br />
variation, ranging from 15 to 50 g m −2 , but also no significant correlation with leaf<br />
longevity in these Piper species. These results led Williams et al. (1989) to<br />
consider instead the ratio <strong>of</strong> cost and gain as a predictor <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. Their<br />
proposed relationship is given by the equation:<br />
L = k · C / a<br />
(4.1)<br />
where L is leaf longevity, C is leaf construction cost, k is a constant that prorates<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> construction to a daily basis over the leaf lifetime, and a is the mean daily<br />
photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> the leaf over its lifetime. They reported a significant positive<br />
correlation between this cost–benefit ratio and leaf longevity (Fig. 4.1). Sobrado<br />
(1991) reported a similar result for six deciduous and four evergreen woody species<br />
in a Venezuelan dry tropical forest using the instantaneous maximum photosynthetic<br />
rate (A max ) rather than the daily photosynthetic rate as a measure <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
productivity. Oikawa et al. (2004) obtained a similar positive correlation between<br />
the cost/photosynthesis ratio and leaf longevity among different leaves in the fern<br />
Pteridium aquilinum.<br />
Construction cost<br />
(d)<br />
Daily carbon gain<br />
10000<br />
1000<br />
100<br />
10<br />
1<br />
50 100<br />
200 300 500 1000<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity (d)<br />
Fig. 4.1 Relationship between the ratio <strong>of</strong> (leaf construction cost)/(leaf carbon gain) and leaf<br />
longevity. Symbols code different species <strong>of</strong> Piper (Piperaceae); d, days. (From Williams et al. 1989)
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> to Maximize Whole-Plant Carbon Gain<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> to Maximize Whole-Plant Carbon Gain<br />
Kikuzawa (1991) adopted and elaborated the idea that leaf longevity should be set<br />
not simply by the magnitude <strong>of</strong> the construction cost, but also by considering the<br />
influence <strong>of</strong> leaf production potential on the time required to recoup the cost <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
construction. More specifically, Kikuzawa reasoned that leaf longevity should be<br />
selected to maximize lifetime net carbon gain, not for the leaf alone but more generally<br />
for the individual plant that bears the leaf (Kikuzawa 1991).<br />
In this context, consider the carbon gain by a single leaf. It has long been recognized<br />
(Šesták 1981) that, at the time <strong>of</strong> leaf maturation, the instantaneous photosynthetic<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> the leaf is at its maximum and then declines with leaf age. Let this<br />
maximum daily photosynthetic rate be a and express the daily photosynthetic rate<br />
at time t after leaf maturation as<br />
43<br />
pt ( ) = a· (1 − t/ b)<br />
(4.2)<br />
where a/b is the rate <strong>of</strong> decline in photosynthetic rate with time and b is the time<br />
when the rate becomes zero. Thus, b defines the potential leaf longevity (Ackerly<br />
1999). The cumulative net carbon gain per unit area <strong>of</strong> leaf (G) arises in the summation<br />
<strong>of</strong> photosynthetic gain per unit time (p) over the leaf lifetime minus the<br />
carbon cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction:<br />
t<br />
Gt () = ∫ pt ()dt−C<br />
(4.3)<br />
0<br />
where C is the cost to produce the leaf expressed as g[glucose] · m[leaf] −2 . The<br />
construction cost (C) is estimated as the product <strong>of</strong> leaf mass per unit leaf area<br />
(LMA, g m −2 ) and a factor (c) to convert a unit weight <strong>of</strong> glucose to a unit weight<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf tissue. This conversion factor, which is itself referred to as a construction<br />
cost in the literature, falls in the range 1.1–1.9 g[glucose] · g[leaf] −1 and can be taken<br />
as a constant value <strong>of</strong> 1.5 g[glucose] · g[leaf] −1 for most purposes (Griffin 1994;<br />
Diemer and Korner 1996; Villar and Merino 2001; Villar et al. 2006).<br />
Box 4.1 Marginal Gain<br />
Microeconomic models used to maximize economic gain in commercial<br />
enterprises can be adapted to analyses optimizing resource gain in plants.<br />
Plants acquire, store, and allocate different kinds <strong>of</strong> resources such as carbon<br />
and nitrogen through investments in resource gain capacity such as leaf and<br />
root production (Bloom et al. 1985). In this modeling framework, plants are<br />
predicted to obtain resources at the lowest possible cost and utilize them to<br />
gain the highest possible return. Marginal gain essentially expresses the efficiency<br />
<strong>of</strong> resource gain, not simply the total amount <strong>of</strong> gain. For example, a<br />
plant should continue to acquire and invest the resources required to produce<br />
leaves and roots until the marginal gain on the investment becomes equivalent<br />
to the marginal costs <strong>of</strong> acquiring the resources. Additionally, we can expect<br />
that the plant should adjust the allocation <strong>of</strong> resources so that growth is equally<br />
limited by all required resources.
44 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
a<br />
Net Gain (G)<br />
0<br />
−C<br />
0 topt te<br />
−C<br />
0<br />
Time (t)<br />
topt 2topt te b<br />
Fig. 4.2 <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity is set by the optimal timing for replacing a leaf to maximize its cumulative<br />
photosynthetic gain at the whole-plant level. The potential photosynthetic gain by a single leaf over<br />
its lifetime is illustrated in (a). If an individual plant could retain a single leaf, the optimal time for<br />
replacing that leaf to maximize gain is t opt , or the point at which the line from the origin touches the<br />
curve. C is the construction cost <strong>of</strong> the leaf and t e is the timing when the instantaneous photosynthetic<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> the leaf becomes zero. The graph in (b) suggests that replacing the leaf at t opt will yield<br />
a greater total gain than retaining the leaf for a second season. G r and G p represents the cumulative<br />
gain by a leaf when replacing (r) and persisting (p) leaves at t e . (From Kikuzawa 1991)<br />
The qualitative consequences <strong>of</strong> these relationships for leaf longevity can be illustrated<br />
graphically (Fig. 4.2). At the moment the leaf matures (time 0), there has been<br />
no photosynthetic gain but the cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction has been incurred, so the<br />
cumulative gain curve has value (0, –C). Cumulative gain increases monotonically<br />
with time, paying back the invested cost and then achieving net carbon gains. Through<br />
the combination <strong>of</strong> decreased function with leaf age specific to a species and the<br />
annual progression <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions in a locality, we expect that generally<br />
the rate <strong>of</strong> carbon gain will diminish with time, until at some leaf age or environmental<br />
condition photosynthetic function is lost and respiratory costs associated with<br />
maintenance and defense actually lead to a net loss <strong>of</strong> carbon produced by the leaf.<br />
Thus, the point when the gain curve is a horizontal line is the time <strong>of</strong> maximum<br />
potential gain by the leaf. If we designate the time <strong>of</strong> maximum gain as t e , it will be<br />
clear from (4.2) that t e = b, the potential leaf longevity. So long as there are no limitations<br />
imposing a longer period <strong>of</strong> leaf retention, this is also the optimal timing for leaf<br />
turnover at the whole-plant level if photosynthetic gains are to be maximized.<br />
To better illustrate the basic logic <strong>of</strong> Kikuzawa’s model, consider a situation in<br />
which a plant can retain only one leaf at a time, and hence the optimal strategy at<br />
the whole-plant level collapses to simply replacing this single leaf. Then the optimal<br />
timing to maximize gain by the plant is not to maximize cumulative gain (G) but to<br />
maximize marginal gain (g), or<br />
G r<br />
G p<br />
0<br />
g = G/ t<br />
(4.4)<br />
r<br />
p
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> to Maximize Whole-Plant Carbon Gain<br />
This optimal timing is the point that a line originating from the origin touches the<br />
cumulative gain curve. To obtain this optimal timing, t opt , we differentiate g with<br />
time t, and obtain the time t when the differential becomes 0. If at this point, the second<br />
differential is negative, then this point is the maximum. The solution is given by<br />
topt (2· bC · / a)<br />
45<br />
0.5<br />
= (4.5)<br />
This result suggests that optimum leaf longevity (t opt ) is determined by three parameters:<br />
(1) the daily photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> a young but fully mature leaf (a), (2) the age<br />
<strong>of</strong> the leaf when the daily photosynthetic capacity becomes 0 (b), and (3) the unit cost<br />
to produce the leaf (C). This solution, which is consistent with the conceptual model<br />
proposed by Chabot and Hicks (1982), provides a comprehensive framework for the<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity; this framework also subsumes terms such as C/a that<br />
Williams et al. (1989) had earlier related to longevity through their empirical studies.<br />
Givnish (2002) criticized the focus on carbon in Kikuzawa’s (1991) model for<br />
leaf longevity, arguing that the only real constraint on leaf retention is the need to<br />
retranslocate nutrients for use in new leaves, either immediately or for storage<br />
through an unfavorable period in the annual cycle. He argued that even if leaves<br />
have only very limited potential to secure further carbon gains, it is nonetheless<br />
useful to take those gains so long as invested nutrients need not be recycled. He<br />
points out that carbon, the main element <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic gain, is mainly used to<br />
strengthen leaves through investments <strong>of</strong> cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin in<br />
cell walls and fiber – large polymers not easily broken down and reused. Givnish<br />
(2002) would prefer a model for leaf longevity at the whole-plant level that considered<br />
jointly the economies <strong>of</strong> carbon and critical nutrients limiting leaf function<br />
(e.g., N, P), but is this really necessary to gain a fundamental understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
variation in foliar design? At least two lines <strong>of</strong> evidence suggest otherwise: (1)<br />
foliar N and P concentrations are well correlated to photosynthetic function<br />
(Wright et al. 2004) and to one another (Han et al. 2005; Reich et al. 2009), indicating<br />
a close linkage in resource allocation and function at the leaf level, and (2)<br />
species on average recover only about half their foliar N before leaf abscission<br />
(Eckstein et al. 1999; Hemminga et al. 1999; Kobe et al. 2005; Yuan and Chen<br />
2009). The important point that determines leaf replacement is not that the nutrients<br />
concerned are or are not retranslocated, but that there is some limitation to<br />
carbon gain in retaining leaves. It is simplest to assume that allocations <strong>of</strong> N and P<br />
follow rather than determine investments <strong>of</strong> carbon and the potential for carbon<br />
gain. On the other hand, Oikawa et al. (2009) show that leaves can be shed before<br />
they have recouped their full cost <strong>of</strong> construction if recovering foliar nitrogen and<br />
investing it in new leaves confers an advantage at the whole-plant level when<br />
nitrogen is limiting in the environment. If there are limitations set by either<br />
endogenous or exogenous factors on the number <strong>of</strong> leaves a plant retains at a time,<br />
it is better for a plant to replace leaves; if there are no limitations, plants should<br />
retain leaves until their photosynthetic rate declines to zero. The fundamental<br />
questions about leaf longevity then have more to do with the nature <strong>of</strong> factors<br />
limiting or impairing leaf function as carbon-gaining organs at the leaf and wholeplant<br />
levels than with ancillary concerns about retranslocation <strong>of</strong> mineral<br />
nutrients.
46 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Modeling Self-Shading Effects on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Self-shading in the course <strong>of</strong> canopy growth is one example <strong>of</strong> a factor at the<br />
whole-plant level that can influence leaf longevity. In the Kikuzawa (1991) model,<br />
photosynthetic rate is assumed to decline with leaf age, although not for any specific<br />
reason. If there were no photosynthetic decline with leaf age, parameter b in (4.2)<br />
and (4.5), and hence leaf longevity, would go to infinity. There is no need to replace<br />
leaves for a plant if the photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> leaves does not decrease with time<br />
for some reason. It may be, however, that the cause <strong>of</strong> declining photosynthetic<br />
capacity is not aging per se, but rather the progression <strong>of</strong> self-shading and a concomitant<br />
decrease <strong>of</strong> nitrogen contents in leaves caused by retranslocation to more<br />
well-lit leaves in the developing canopy (Ackerly and Bazzaz 1995; Ackerly 1999).<br />
If we assume that the number <strong>of</strong> leaves on a growing shoot is maintained constant,<br />
then leaf longevity will be given from (3.4) by<br />
L = N / r<br />
(4.6)<br />
where L is leaf longevity (days), N is leaf number per shoot, and r is leaf production rate<br />
per shoot per day. Now let the photosynthetic production rate per shoot per day be D g :<br />
Dg = Na ·<br />
(4.7)<br />
where a is the mean daily photosynthetic rate averaged across all leaves on the<br />
shoot. Photosynthetic carbon gain by the shoot then can be partitioned to new leaf<br />
production (D c ) and to translocation at the whole-plant level (D s ), which will be<br />
used for branch, stem, and root production and reproduction. Let the allocation<br />
ratio to foliar production be F; then<br />
Dc = FNa · ·<br />
(4.8)<br />
If the cost to produce one leaf is C, then leaf production rate per day (r) is given<br />
by r = D c /C where D c is given by<br />
Dc = NC · / L<br />
(4.9)<br />
As translocation is given by D g − D c , then the translocation D s is given by<br />
and by substitutions, r will be given by<br />
Ds = N·( a− C / L)<br />
(4.10)<br />
r= FNa · · / C<br />
(4.11)<br />
The preceding two equations are focal in maximizing translocation (4.10) and<br />
shoot growth (4.11), but we have to know how mean daily photosynthetic gain<br />
(a) changes. If the instantaneous photosynthetic rate declines with time, as shown<br />
in (4.2), mean daily photosynthetic rate will be given by<br />
A= a − a · L/2b (4.12)<br />
0 0<br />
where a 0 is the photosynthetic rate at time 0 and b is a constant. This equation is<br />
the integration <strong>of</strong> (4.2) from time 0 to time L divided by L.
Modeling Self-Shading Effects on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
If we consider that photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> individual leaves is determined by the<br />
position <strong>of</strong> each leaf on a shoot, then photosynthetic rate declines linearly with<br />
position in a way analogous to decline with age in single leaves (4.2). Mean photosynthetic<br />
rate is described by the following equation:<br />
0 0<br />
47<br />
a = a − a · N /2p<br />
(4.13)<br />
where p is a constant, a 0 is the photosynthetic rate <strong>of</strong> a leaf at the top <strong>of</strong> the shoot,<br />
and N is the number <strong>of</strong> leaves counted from the top <strong>of</strong> the shoot. Substitution <strong>of</strong><br />
either (4.12) or (4.13) into either (4.10) or (4.11) gives four equations. Ackerly<br />
(1999) gave solutions for two <strong>of</strong> the four: (1) to maximize the translocation from<br />
the shoot when photosynthetic rate declines with time and (2) to maximize leaf<br />
production when photosynthetic rate declines with position. The other two cases<br />
give solutions intermediate to these two extremes. The solution <strong>of</strong> the first model<br />
maximizing translocation is<br />
L = (2 · b· C / a )<br />
(4.14)<br />
* 0.5<br />
0<br />
where L* is the optimal leaf longevity to maximize the translocation from the shoot.<br />
This solution is basically the same as (4.4) for a single leaf. The photosynthetic rate<br />
at L* is given by<br />
0.5<br />
a* = a −(2<br />
a · C / b )<br />
(4.15)<br />
0 0<br />
where a* is the photosynthetic rate at the time <strong>of</strong> leaffall and usually takes a positive<br />
value. In contrast, in the second case, the number <strong>of</strong> leaves that maximizes the<br />
leaf production per shoot is given by<br />
and the corresponding leaf longevity is given by<br />
*<br />
N = p<br />
(4.16)<br />
*<br />
L 2· C / a · F<br />
= (4.17)<br />
which is equivalent to the equation given by Williams et al. (1989). The photosynthetic<br />
rate at the terminal leaf lifespan when shoot growth is maximized is then a* = 0.<br />
Box 4.2 Population Growth Rates<br />
Although leaves do not reproduce in the ways that individual plants and animals<br />
do, nonetheless the leaves in a plant canopy can be considered a population<br />
subject to the equations governing population growth. In this case, the<br />
following equation will hold:<br />
∞<br />
1 e ri −<br />
= ∑lb<br />
i i<br />
i=<br />
0<br />
If a population increases without any constraints, it will grow exponentially:<br />
N = N<br />
(1)<br />
x<br />
0 erx<br />
(continued)
48 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 4.2 (continued)<br />
where N and N are the number <strong>of</strong> individuals at times 0 and x, respectively,<br />
0 x<br />
and r is the intrinsic rate <strong>of</strong> population growth. Now let the number <strong>of</strong> individuals<br />
born 1 year ago be n ; the number surviving from this cohort is then<br />
1<br />
n l , where l is survival rate. An individual bears b <strong>of</strong>fspring; thus, in total the<br />
1 1 1<br />
cohort produces n l b <strong>of</strong>fspring. Similarly, individuals born 2 years previ-<br />
1 1 1<br />
ously will produce n l b and so on. Thus, the total number <strong>of</strong> new individuals<br />
2 2 2<br />
born in a year is<br />
∞<br />
n = ∑ nlb<br />
(2)<br />
Carbon Balance at the Time <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong>fall<br />
0<br />
0<br />
where we consider that b = 0. 0<br />
Now consider the relationship between the total number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fspring born<br />
in this year (n ) and those born last year (n ). The growth must be exponential:<br />
0 1<br />
n = n e 0 1 r or n = e 1 −rn . 0<br />
−ir<br />
Similarly, ni= e n0(3)<br />
and substitution <strong>of</strong> (3) into n in (2) will give<br />
i<br />
Which <strong>of</strong> the leaf longevities given by (4.14) and (4.17), and which <strong>of</strong> the photosynthetic<br />
rates at the time <strong>of</strong> leaffall given by (4.15) or a* = 0, are nearer to the<br />
truth? Kikuzawa (1991) held that if there were no constraints on the number <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves that could be retained by a single individual plant at a time, then leaves<br />
should be retained for their full potential longevity and thus their photosynthetic<br />
rate at the time <strong>of</strong> leaffall should be zero. But if there are some constraints to retain<br />
a fixed number <strong>of</strong> leaves for a plant, then leaves should be shaded at the time <strong>of</strong> t opt ,<br />
even while photosynthetic rate is positive. Ackerly (1999) tested the two alternatives<br />
and suggested that leaf senescence is primarily a function <strong>of</strong> the position <strong>of</strong><br />
a leaf within a canopy rather than its chronological age. He also examined the<br />
photosynthetic rates at leaf death, which were greater than zero but nearer to zero<br />
i i i<br />
0 e 0<br />
0<br />
ir<br />
∞<br />
−<br />
= ∑<br />
n nlb<br />
Dividing both sides <strong>of</strong> the above equation by n 0 will give the equation:<br />
∞<br />
1 e ri −<br />
= ∑lb<br />
i i<br />
i=<br />
0<br />
i i
Time Value <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
than expected from (4.15). Oikawa et al. (2009) reported that leaves were shed even<br />
though their carbon gain was positive, which increased the efficiency <strong>of</strong> nitrogen<br />
use in the whole plant. But when nitrogen was not limiting, leaves tended to be<br />
retained until their carbon gain became zero. Reich et al. (2009) assessed whether<br />
the daytime carbon balance at the average leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> ten Australian woodland<br />
species is positive, zero, or negative. Almost all leaves had a positive carbon<br />
balance at the time <strong>of</strong> their fall. These per-leaf carbon surpluses were <strong>of</strong> similar<br />
magnitude to the assumed whole-plant respiratory costs per leaf. Thus, the results<br />
suggest that a whole-plant economic framework may be useful in assessing controls<br />
on leaf longevity.<br />
Time Value <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
Harper (1989) was perhaps the first to consider that the value <strong>of</strong> a leaf changes<br />
with time. He recognized that the value <strong>of</strong> a leaf for a plant is not simply the<br />
lifetime summation <strong>of</strong> its photosynthetic gains but also the gains accrued<br />
through investment <strong>of</strong> organic matter translocated from the leaf. If organic<br />
matter can be translocated and used for production <strong>of</strong> new leaves earlier, this is<br />
advantageous for carbon gain at the whole-plant level compared to later translocation<br />
for production <strong>of</strong> new leaves. The situation is analogous to the process <strong>of</strong><br />
population growth, in which individual organisms reproduce new individuals. If<br />
a population is maintained at stable numbers, then population growth rate (r) is<br />
given by<br />
−rx<br />
∫ e lx ( )· m( x)dx= 1<br />
(4.18)<br />
where l(x) is the survivorship by age x, and m(x) is the rate <strong>of</strong> production <strong>of</strong> new<br />
individuals at age x per unit time dx. By analogy to age at first reproduction, young<br />
leaves cannot contribute to translocation until they are expanded and fully functional.<br />
Leaves that translocate photosynthates used for production <strong>of</strong> new leaves<br />
several days earlier thus yield an advantage in carbon gains at the whole-plant level<br />
(Harper 1989). If the photosynthate is stored for later leaf production, however,<br />
then this potential advantage is diminished or lost entirely. For example, stored<br />
photosynthates used for leaf production in the next year would confer no advantage<br />
through earlier translocation because materials from new leaves and those from old<br />
leaves do not differ in value. In trees, for example, earlier translocation is significant<br />
in successive leafing species but not in species with a simultaneous leafing<br />
habit. As a corollary, selection should favor hastened development in successiveleafing<br />
species but not in simultaneous-leafing species; delayed greening thus can<br />
be expected to occur in some simultaneous-leafing species but not in successiveleafing<br />
species.<br />
49
50 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 4.3 The Monsi–Saeki Model and Its Implications<br />
Masami Monsi and Toshiro Saeki (1953) were pioneers in the development <strong>of</strong><br />
models for ecosystem productivity. They presented a canopy photosynthesis<br />
model in which (1) light intensity decreased exponentially with accumulating<br />
leaf area and (2) canopy photosynthetic rate increased asymptotically with<br />
light intensity. Thus, in a given light regime there should be a depth in the<br />
canopy where photosynthetic gains are just balanced by respiratory losses;<br />
any deeper into the canopy respiratory losses surpass photosynthetic gains.<br />
Monsi and Saeki predicted that in a given light regime there should be an<br />
optimum leaf area index (LAI, the area or biomass <strong>of</strong> leaves per unit ground<br />
area), although they recognized that the optimal LAI might also depend on<br />
interactions among leaf angle, leaf size, and branching architecture that influenced<br />
light interception in different species and plant communities. Monsi<br />
and Saeki’s pioneering work stimulated many studies to see how LAI varied<br />
after canopy closure within and among diverse plant community types. For<br />
example, Tadaki and Hachiya (1968) reported that the LAI in terms <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
weight per unit land area was consistently about 3.0 ton ha −1 for temperate<br />
deciduous forests, 8.6 ton ha −1 for evergreen broad-leaved forests, and<br />
16 ton ha −1 for evergreen coniferous forests.<br />
Although Monsi and Saeki developed their model for plant communities,<br />
it has implications for individual plant canopies as well. If leaf biomass in<br />
a community or in the canopy <strong>of</strong> an individual plant is constant, then any new<br />
leaf production must be associated with the fall <strong>of</strong> a corresponding amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> old leaves. Light captured by a new leaf in the upper canopy will reduce the<br />
light penetrating to the deepest level <strong>of</strong> the canopy, thus tipping the balance<br />
<strong>of</strong> photosynthetic gains to respiratory losses in the most shaded leaves and<br />
(continued)
Time Value <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
Box 4.3 (continued)<br />
triggering their senescence. When a new leaf appears at the top <strong>of</strong> the canopy,<br />
an older, shaded leaf should fall at the bottom <strong>of</strong> the canopy in the steady state.<br />
Although leaves are fixed in their absolute position on the branch where they<br />
originated, their relative position in the canopy becomes progressively deeper<br />
as leaves develop on growing shoots at the upper and outer peripheries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
canopy. As the canopy grows over time, absolute leaf positions that once were<br />
at the growing periphery and well lighted inevitably become deeply shaded and<br />
unable to sustain a viable leaf. The change in relative position through the lifetime<br />
<strong>of</strong> an individual leaf is analogous to the change in the real position <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves from the exterior to the interior <strong>of</strong> the canopy over time. Thus, we can<br />
speak <strong>of</strong> a canopy ergodic hypothesis that predicts the average light regime, and<br />
photosynthetic rates <strong>of</strong> leaves across positions at a moment in time are equivalent<br />
to those <strong>of</strong> a single leaf through time, at least so long as the canopy is reasonably<br />
close to a condition <strong>of</strong> steady-state growth (Kikuzawa et al. 2009).<br />
Westoby et al. (2000) also considered the topic <strong>of</strong> the “time value <strong>of</strong> a leaf,” but<br />
went beyond Harper (1989) to formally incorporate the concept into a theory<br />
predicting leaf longevity. They recognized that the functional value <strong>of</strong> a leaf as a<br />
carbon-gaining organ decreases over time for a variety <strong>of</strong> reasons: intrinsic loss <strong>of</strong><br />
function with age, shading in the course <strong>of</strong> canopy growth, the effects <strong>of</strong> damage<br />
by pathogens or herbivores, and similar considerations. In this context they assessed<br />
the trade-<strong>of</strong>f between investments that could slow losses <strong>of</strong> leaf function over<br />
time and those that involved transport to create new leaves. Taking the rate <strong>of</strong> the<br />
age-dependent reduction in foliar function to be k and the organic matter transported<br />
from the leaf to other parts <strong>of</strong> the plant body as E, they then expressed the<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> transport from a unit amount <strong>of</strong> leaf over its lifetime (R) as<br />
Integrating this relationship as<br />
L<br />
0<br />
−kt<br />
( )<br />
leaf longevity (L) then can be expressed as<br />
51<br />
R = ∫ E× SLA × e dt<br />
(4.19)<br />
E × SLA −kL<br />
R = ( 1− e )<br />
(4.20)<br />
k<br />
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ kR ⎞<br />
L = ⎜− n 1<br />
k<br />
⎟ ⎜ −<br />
E×<br />
SLA<br />
⎟<br />
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠<br />
(4.21)<br />
This analysis suggests that leaf longevity is a function <strong>of</strong> the lifetime amount <strong>of</strong><br />
transported photosynthate (R), the maximum rate <strong>of</strong> transport at the time <strong>of</strong> full leaf<br />
expansion (E), the rate <strong>of</strong> decline in transport rate with leaf age (k), and specific leaf<br />
area (SLA). The analysis lets us visualize the relationship between leaf longevity
52 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Fig. 4.3 Relationship between<br />
leaf longevity and specific leaf<br />
area. Lines and curves in the<br />
panels follow from (4.18)<br />
in the text. When k = 0, the<br />
relationships are linear and when<br />
k = 0.08, they are curvilinear;<br />
the instantaneous potential<br />
translocation rate E and lifetime<br />
transportation R are parameters.<br />
(From Westoby et al. 2000)<br />
and SLA (the inverse <strong>of</strong> LMA) when other factors are held constant (Fig. 4.3).<br />
When k = 0, the logarithm <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity decreases linearly with log (SLA), but<br />
if k takes a positive value, then the relationships become curvilinear and convex to<br />
the bottom. The anal ysis makes it clear that because photosynthetic rate and thus<br />
translocation rate change with time, it is necessary to incorporate these changes in<br />
modeling <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity.<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover in Plant Canopies<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity (mo) [log scale]<br />
The preceding models have focused on longevity as a leaf-level trait and invoked<br />
canopy-level influences in only a generalized way. There is another literature tracing<br />
back to a seminal paper by Monsi and Saeki (1953) on the characteristics <strong>of</strong> plant<br />
canopies that deals with leaf longevity secondarily through the rate <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover<br />
in the canopy. When a plant canopy is in steady state, leaf longevity is the inverse<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf turnover in the canopy. The pioneering work by Monsi and Saeki (1953)<br />
focused on the concept <strong>of</strong> an optimum leaf area per unit land area, an optimal leaf<br />
area index (LAI). They used the then-novel method <strong>of</strong> stratified clipping to assess<br />
the vertical distribution <strong>of</strong> leaf area in various plant communities. These data on<br />
canopy structure stimulated development <strong>of</strong> theory predicting the aggregate characteristics<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaves in different canopy strata. Because <strong>of</strong> the close correlation<br />
between foliar nitrogen and photosynthetic capacity and the recognition that nitrogen<br />
a<br />
100<br />
10<br />
1<br />
b<br />
100<br />
10<br />
1<br />
1 10<br />
k = 0.00 mo –1<br />
k = 0.08 mo –1<br />
100<br />
Specific leaf area (mm 2 mg –1 ) [log scale]
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and <strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover in Plant Canopies<br />
availability <strong>of</strong>ten limited plant productivity in terrestrial ecosystems, considerable<br />
attention subsequently has been devoted to the optimal distribution <strong>of</strong> nitrogen<br />
across canopy strata (Field 1983; Hirose and Werger 1987a,b). Most <strong>of</strong> this literature<br />
tracing back to Monsi and Saeki (1953) has taken a static view <strong>of</strong> the plant<br />
canopy, but recently Hikosaka (2003a,b, 2005) has turned the focus toward the<br />
dynamics <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover in the context <strong>of</strong> optimizing a stratified plant canopy. He<br />
considers that leaves are produced from the products <strong>of</strong> canopy photosynthesis and<br />
that after the canopy reaches a stable state older leaves will be shed in proportion<br />
to the production <strong>of</strong> new leaves. Simulations using Hikosaka’s model revealed the<br />
negative trends <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity on canopy light environment and on availability <strong>of</strong><br />
soil nitrogen that have been documented in studies at the canopy level. Hikosaka’s<br />
model also showed a positive correlation between leaf longevity and leaf mass per<br />
leaf area (LMA), which is consistent with both models and observations (Fig. 4.4).<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> life-span (day)<br />
a<br />
26<br />
24<br />
22<br />
c 30<br />
d<br />
b 200<br />
20<br />
0 1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
0<br />
0 500 1000 1500 2000<br />
Nitrogen uptake rate (mmol m –2 d –1 ) Noon PFD (µmol m –2 d –1 )<br />
25<br />
20<br />
N uptake rate = 0.4<br />
150<br />
100<br />
N uptake rate = 4 40<br />
N uptake rate<br />
= max.<br />
15 0 0.1 0.2 0.3<br />
Slope <strong>of</strong> P max−n L relationship<br />
(mmol m –1 s –1 )<br />
50<br />
120<br />
80<br />
N uptake rate<br />
= 0.4<br />
53<br />
0<br />
0 50 100 150 200 250<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> mass per area (g m –2 )<br />
Fig. 4.4 Relationships between leaf longevity and (a) nitrogen uptake rate from soil, (b) irradiance,<br />
(c) relationship between photosynthetic capacity and foliar nitrogen, and (d) leaf mass per area.<br />
(From Hikosaka 2003a, b)
54 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
However, because <strong>of</strong> the assumption that the respiration rate <strong>of</strong> a single leaf increases<br />
in proportion to nitrogen concentration, this model shows a curious behavior in that<br />
under higher levels <strong>of</strong> nitrogen absorption from the soil, the entire plant stand will die.<br />
Box 4.4 Herbivory<br />
Herbivory refers to the consumption <strong>of</strong> living plant material by invertebrate<br />
and vertebrate animals. There is an extraordinary variety <strong>of</strong> modes <strong>of</strong> herbivory,<br />
from the sucking <strong>of</strong> sap to the consumption <strong>of</strong> leaves and seeds. There<br />
also are strong contrasts in losses to herbivores in terrestrial versus aquatic<br />
ecosystems. For example, leaf consumption by herbivorous animals in terrestrial<br />
ecosystems is usually less than 5% <strong>of</strong> net primary production, in strong<br />
contrast to aquatic systems, where herbivory is usually greater than 50% <strong>of</strong><br />
net primary production (Cyr and Pace 1993).<br />
To make sense <strong>of</strong> this situation we have to consider why plants defend<br />
against herbivore losses at all. The basic answer is that the more expensive<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> constructing the systems for primary production, the more likely<br />
are additional investments in their defense against loss to herbivores or disease.<br />
The leaves <strong>of</strong> terrestrial plants and the various ancillary structures<br />
such as roots and transport systems that sustain photosynthetic function are<br />
relatively “expensive” to construct and maintain. Terrestrial plants make<br />
substantial investments in systems for primary production that are only<br />
recovered over fairly long time periods, and hence ancillary investments in<br />
defense can ensure returns on investment in the photosynthetic function <strong>of</strong><br />
their leaves.<br />
In contrast to terrestrial leaves, the costs associated with constructing and<br />
maintaining net primary production are much less in aquatic systems. Aquatic<br />
plants need not invest in structures for the uptake and transport <strong>of</strong> water. They<br />
can utilize buoyancy to <strong>of</strong>fset the force <strong>of</strong> gravity that imposes structural costs<br />
on terrestrial plants. They can absorb nutrients from the surrounding water<br />
directly with no need <strong>of</strong> root systems. In short, the investments in systems for<br />
primary production required <strong>of</strong> aquatic plants are much lower than those in<br />
terrestrial plants, generally too low to justify diverting resources to defense.<br />
It is advantageous to produce more individuals, even if many will be lost to<br />
herbivory, to simply outgrow the risk posed by herbivory.<br />
On the other hand, there is no doubt that terrestrial plants invest in a variety<br />
<strong>of</strong> defenses against herbivory. A significant part <strong>of</strong> net primary production is<br />
allocated to plant defenses, which are usually divided into several types:<br />
1. Physical defenses<br />
–<br />
–<br />
Hard or fibrous tissues resistant to herbivore attack (Lusk et al. 2010)<br />
Thorns and stinging hairs that deter herbivores<br />
(continued)
Directions for Future Theory<br />
Box 4.4 (continued)<br />
2. Chemical defense<br />
–<br />
–<br />
–<br />
Quantitative chemical defense involving relatively large pools <strong>of</strong> chemicals<br />
such as phenolics that reduce tissue quality for herbivores<br />
Qualitative chemical defense involving small amounts <strong>of</strong> poisonous<br />
chemicals such as alkaloids that are toxic to many herbivores<br />
Induced chemical defenses that are produced only after herbivore<br />
attack to discourage continued feeding<br />
3. Biological defenses involving diverse mutualisms<br />
– Production <strong>of</strong> specialized food bodies or extrafloral nectaries on the<br />
leaf lamina or petiole to attract ants that in turn attack caterpillars<br />
which might feed on the leaf<br />
– Production <strong>of</strong> volatile chemical signals to attract predators and parasites<br />
<strong>of</strong> an herbivore<br />
– Specialized structures under the veins on the lower surface <strong>of</strong> a leaf for predatory<br />
mites that act as guards against herbivorous mites or infecting fungi<br />
4. Other methods to avoid herbivores<br />
–<br />
–<br />
Open leaves synchronously with other plants to satiate herbivores and<br />
reduce the risk <strong>of</strong> damage<br />
Reduce apparency to herbivores by mimicking less palatable tissues or<br />
species<br />
Despite these substantial and diverse investments in defense against herbivores,<br />
it still is not entirely clear why levels <strong>of</strong> terrestrial herbivory are so low<br />
relative to those in aquatic systems. The defenses enumerated here fall into a<br />
bottom-up, escape-in-time explanation for the low level <strong>of</strong> herbivory in<br />
terrestrial systems: basically, that mature plant tissues are well defended and<br />
<strong>of</strong> little value as a food resource for herbivores except in the brief period when<br />
the tissues are developing. An alternative, top-down explanation is that predatory<br />
animals, parasites, and disease keep herbivore numbers low and plant<br />
defenses have relatively little to do with the outcomes. In fact, it is likely that<br />
both top-down and bottom-up controls play a role in terrestrial as well as aquatic<br />
systems, but the relationships are complex and remain to be fully understood.<br />
Directions for Future Theory<br />
There are at least two main lines along which theories for leaf longevity can usefully<br />
be advanced. We have already alluded to one, the consolidation <strong>of</strong> theory developed<br />
at the canopy level with that developed at the leaf level. Hikosaka (2005) has taken a<br />
55
56 4 Theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Metabolic rate<br />
(nmd g−1 s−1 )<br />
10 3<br />
10 2<br />
10<br />
1<br />
10<br />
Photosynthesis<br />
10 2<br />
10 3 10 4<br />
<strong>Longevity</strong> (days)<br />
Fig. 4.5 <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> individual organisms or leaves (X-axis) and metabolic rate per unit leaves.<br />
For mammals, this gradient is nearly −1.0, but for photosynthesis by leaves, the gradient is only<br />
about −0.66. The lower line parallel to photosynthesis is dark respiration. (From Reich 2001)<br />
significant step in this direction by integrating leaf-level theory into his analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
canopy dynamics, but until recently (Hikosaka and Osone 2009) his emphasis has<br />
been on the canopy. Although it is true that selection on foliar characteristics is<br />
contingent on plant performance that is determined at the whole-canopy level, there<br />
are constraints at the leaf level which may set limits on canopy design. For example,<br />
Shipley et al. (2006) show that the spectrum <strong>of</strong> variation in foliar design is rooted in<br />
trade-<strong>of</strong>fs at the cellular and tissue levels within the leaf. There also may be some<br />
fundamental linkages <strong>of</strong> this sort that extend to the scaling <strong>of</strong> metabolic activity for all<br />
organisms (West et al. 1997; Brown et al. 2005), including plants (Reich 2001; Enquist<br />
et al. 2007; Price and Enquist 2007). Reich (2001) points out that foliar metabolism<br />
scales with leaf longevity much as animal metabolism scales with lifespan, although<br />
with a different slope (Fig. 4.5). What is uncertain is whether this scaling on leaf longevity<br />
would converge to the slope for animals if whole-plant longevity were the scaling<br />
factor. It is the give and take between functional constraints and opportunities at the<br />
canopy versus foliar levels that will decide whole-plant leaf longevities and alternative<br />
strategies for plant productivity. These interactions merit serious analysis. A fundamental<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> the different modes <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity that underlie the evergreen versus<br />
deciduous habits and an explanation <strong>of</strong> which environments favor one or both habits<br />
is likely to be found in the interplay <strong>of</strong> foliar- and canopy-level traits.<br />
A second useful line <strong>of</strong> inquiry would be to seek a deeper understanding <strong>of</strong> the<br />
roles <strong>of</strong> herbivory and disease as factors in the selection <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. Chabot<br />
and Hicks (1982) noted the significance <strong>of</strong> these factors, and they have been widely<br />
acknowledged in subsequent work, but without ever being explicitly incorporated<br />
into a theoretical analysis <strong>of</strong> variation in leaf longevity. We have considerable data<br />
on the effects <strong>of</strong> both herbivores and disease on leaf function as well as on the<br />
multitude <strong>of</strong> strategies for foliar defense, but no simple generalizations emerge<br />
(Jones 2006; Nunez-Farfan et al. 2007; Howe and Jander 2008; Poland et al. 2009).<br />
A more complete theoretical framework rooted in an assessment <strong>of</strong> foliar function<br />
at the whole-plant level might help make sense <strong>of</strong> the voluminous but <strong>of</strong>ten confounding<br />
data on plant defense against herbivores and disease.
Chapter 5<br />
Phylogenetic Variation in <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Tree fern canopy (Cyathea arborea)<br />
There are broad patterns <strong>of</strong> variation in leaf longevity associated with plant growth<br />
form (Fig. 5.1), and leaf longevity spans more than two orders <strong>of</strong> magnitude<br />
(Fig. 5.2). Longevities as little as a few weeks are recorded for some herbaceous<br />
species and 20 years or more for some woody species (Wright et al. 2004). Lusk (2001)<br />
reported leaf longevities for a conifer in south-central Chile as long as 26.2 years in<br />
shaded sites and 21.5 years in open sites. The extensive compilation <strong>of</strong> leaf longevities<br />
by Wright et al. (2004) is primarily for woody species (79%), mostly shrubs and<br />
trees, with only a few vines; the herbaceous plants in this compilation include<br />
graminoids as well as forbs. The median value <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity in this data set is<br />
8.5 months. Biologically noteworthy longevities are illustrated by the temporary<br />
flattening <strong>of</strong> the rank-order diagram (see Fig. 5.2) at about 3.5 months and again at<br />
6 months. Although there is in general a highly regular and continuous variation in<br />
longevity across species, these clusters <strong>of</strong> species with similar longevities suggest<br />
the existence <strong>of</strong> some sort <strong>of</strong> limiting factor on leaf viability associated with longevities<br />
<strong>of</strong> these durations. We can speculate that the 6-month longevity reflects the typical<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_5, © Springer 2011<br />
57
58 5 Phylogenetic Variation in <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Floating leaves <strong>of</strong><br />
aquatic plants<br />
Annual plants<br />
Perennial herbaceous<br />
plants<br />
Temperate deciduous<br />
trees<br />
10 100 200<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> life span (days)<br />
Fig. 5.1 <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> plants <strong>of</strong> different growth forms. (From Kikuzawa and Ackerly 1999)<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity, months<br />
1000.00<br />
100.00<br />
10.00<br />
1.00<br />
0.10<br />
0 200 400 600<br />
Increasing rank<br />
Fig. 5.2 Frequency distribution <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity for leaves <strong>of</strong> diverse species from a wide variety<br />
<strong>of</strong> climate zones. (Data from Wright et al. 2004)<br />
length <strong>of</strong> the growing season in temperate regions where many <strong>of</strong> the compiled data<br />
were taken, but what might account for the 3.5-month longevity? This cluster <strong>of</strong><br />
species with rather rapid leaf turnover includes many fast-growing herbaceous and<br />
woody species from temperate regions, which reflects a dichotomy between<br />
deciduous species that produce only one set <strong>of</strong> leaves per season and others which<br />
produce leaves throughout the season. Even within a single climatic regime there are
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ferns<br />
alternative evolutionary outcomes in the organization <strong>of</strong> foliar phenology that<br />
involve distinct differences in leaf longevity. For some groups <strong>of</strong> plants sufficient<br />
data have been compiled (cf. Wright et al. 2004) to detect broad differences in leaf<br />
longevity, but other groups are too little studied to identify any characteristic leaf<br />
longevity. Here we briefly review what we know about patterns <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity<br />
among and within diverse groups <strong>of</strong> plants, illustrating our points with selected<br />
examples.<br />
Box 5.1 Adaptive Radiation<br />
The diversity <strong>of</strong> species at any time in Earth’s history arises in the balance<br />
between rates <strong>of</strong> speciation and extinction. There are background rates <strong>of</strong><br />
speciation and extinction, but occasionally events trigger a rapid increase in<br />
the rate <strong>of</strong> speciation. Such bursts <strong>of</strong> speciation are referred to as an adaptive<br />
radiation. Adaptive radiations are <strong>of</strong>ten associated with colonization <strong>of</strong> speciespoor<br />
environments such as an isolated oceanic island that allows colonizing<br />
species to diversify and exploit a wider variety <strong>of</strong> resources and habitats without<br />
facing strong competitive interactions from other species. A well-known<br />
example <strong>of</strong> adaptive radiation is the finches on the Galapagos Islands, which<br />
now include many species derived from a single ancestor that have diversified<br />
to use different habitats and food resources within and among the islands in<br />
this archipelago far <strong>of</strong>f the coast <strong>of</strong> South America.<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Ferns<br />
The extant ferns trace their ancestry to the early Paleozoic but their current diversity<br />
to an adaptive radiation in the early Tertiary (Schneider et al. 2004). Most<br />
species are herbaceous, but there are some woody ferns that are tropical and<br />
evergreen, with leaf longevity generally a year or longer. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevities were<br />
328 days for Cyathea furfuraca, 525 days for C. pubescens, and 730 days for<br />
C. woodwardioides (Tanner 1983). Mean leaf longevity averaged 1.1–1.6 years<br />
for Cyathea hornei (Ash 1987) and 2–2.5 years for Leptopteris wilkesiana (Ash<br />
1986). The herbaceous ferns are more diverse in both their climatic affinities and<br />
their leaf longevities. Sato and Sakai (1980) classified 67 herbaceous ferns in<br />
northern Japan into four groups in terms <strong>of</strong> foliar habit: evergreen, semievergreen,<br />
summergreen, and wintergreen. Evergreen species such as Lepisorus<br />
ussuriensis and Pyrrosia tricuspis produce new leaves in June and July that are<br />
shed from April to August 2 years later. Other evergreen species such as<br />
Asplenium incisum, Blechnum niponicum, and Phyllitis scolopendrium also produce<br />
leaves early in the growing season but shed them after only about 1 year.<br />
Semievergreen species such as Dryopteris crassirhizoma and Polystichum<br />
tripteron produce leaves in late May and early July that begin to senesce by<br />
59
60 5 Phylogenetic Variation in <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
December but only completely die as new leaves are produced. Summergreen<br />
species produce their leaves in May and June and shed them in October; many<br />
species, for example, Athyrium brevifrons and Dryopteris phegopteris, share this<br />
habit with leaf longevity around a half-year. Wintergreen species such as<br />
Scepteridium multifidum var. robustum and Polypodium japonicum with a leaf<br />
longevity <strong>of</strong> about 10 months produce new leaves in late July to early September<br />
and shed their leaves in late May to early July.<br />
Yoshida and Takasu (1993) reported similar observations <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity for<br />
ferns in the warm temperate zone <strong>of</strong> central Japan. Summergreen species such as<br />
Athyrium pycnosorum, A. wardii, Coniogromme japonica var. fauriei, and<br />
Cornopteris decurrenti-alata had leaf longevities from 164 to 210 days. Among<br />
evergreen species, the leaf longevities <strong>of</strong> Polystichum retroso-paleoceum,<br />
Doryopteris polylepis, and D. lacera were around 1 year. In a semievergreen species<br />
such as P. tripteron only a few old leaves remained 300 days later when new<br />
leaves emerged. True evergreen species such as Microlepia marginata, Rumohr<br />
standishii, Athyrium otophorum, Blechnum niponicum, and Asplenium wrightii<br />
had leaf longevities longer than 1 year and old leaves coexisting with newly produced<br />
leaves. Asplenium wrightii had the longest leaf longevity, more than 1,000<br />
days (Yoshida and Takasu 1993).<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Gymnosperms<br />
A branch <strong>of</strong> evergreen conifer (Abies firma)
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Angiosperms<br />
The extant gymnosperms, a lineage tracing back to the Middle Devonian some<br />
365 million years ago (MYA), have their greatest diversity in the Southern<br />
Hemisphere, but it is the species in the Northern Hemisphere that are best<br />
studied (Enright and Hill 1995). Lusk (2001) reported a few leaf longevities<br />
for Southern Hemisphere species ranging from 4.2 years for Saxegothaea<br />
conspicua and 7.3 years for Podocarpus nubigena on up to 23.9 years for Araucaria<br />
araucana and 32 years for Podocarpus saligna. Species in the genera Abies,<br />
Pinus, Picea, and Larix are good examples <strong>of</strong> the northern conifers, which most<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten are evergreen trees with fairly long-lived needle- or scale-like leaves.<br />
In the genus Pinus, leaf longevities can range from as short as 1.5 years in Pinus<br />
taeda to more than 40 years in Pinus longaeva (Ewers and Schmid 1981;<br />
Schoettle 1990). <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> leaves in Pinus tabulaeformis varies with latitude,<br />
but at the extreme can be as short as 0.94 years (Xiao 2003). Needle longevity<br />
<strong>of</strong> Pinus contorta in the Rocky Mountains <strong>of</strong> Colorado was 13.1 years at<br />
3,200 m versus 9.5 years at 2,800 m (Schoettle 1990). A similar trend also was<br />
observed in Pinus contorta in California: longevity at 15 m was 3.9 years, at<br />
182 m was 4.2 years, and at 2,700 m was 7.9 years (Ewers and Schmid 1981).<br />
In a warm temperate region, the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> Abies was <strong>of</strong> the order <strong>of</strong> 6–8<br />
years (Furuno et al. 1979). The half-life <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> Abies mariesii ranged from<br />
3 to 9 years and up to as long as 13 years, varying among branches within the<br />
canopy (Kohyama 1980). The mean leaf half-life is 7 years in A. mariesii and<br />
only 4 years in Abies veitchii (Kimura 1963; Kimura et al. 1968). Eight species<br />
<strong>of</strong> Asian, North American, and European Picea grown in northern Japan had leaf<br />
longevities ranging from 5 to 11 years (Kayama et al. 2007). The leaf longevity<br />
<strong>of</strong> Picea mariana was 5–8 years in Minnesota but 8–15 years in Alaska (Reich<br />
et al. 1996). Niinemets and Lukjanova (2003) reported maximum needle longevities<br />
<strong>of</strong> 16 years in Abies balsamea, 12 in Picea abies, and 6 in Pinus sylvestris.<br />
Gower et al. (1993) estimated leaf longevities <strong>of</strong> plantation-grown P. abies at<br />
66 months, Pinus resinosa at 46 months, and Larix decidua at 6 months. Larix<br />
species are among the minority <strong>of</strong> conifer genera that are deciduous, unless their<br />
needles are protected under snow cover (Gower and Richards 1990). An extensive<br />
compilation <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity for coniferous trees augments these examples<br />
(Wright et al. 2004).<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Angiosperms<br />
Evergreen Broad-Leaved Woody Species<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> evergreen broad-leaved trees in temperate regions is usually<br />
1–5 years. Nitta and Ohsawa (1997) provide a good example for 11 species<br />
in laurel forests near the northern limit <strong>of</strong> evergeeen broad-leaved forests in<br />
61
62 5 Phylogenetic Variation in <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
10<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
Symplocos prunifolia Machilus thunbergii<br />
10<br />
AMJJASONDJFMAMJ J ASOND<br />
AMJJASONDJFMAMJ J ASOND<br />
1994 1995 1994 1995<br />
Month<br />
Fig. 5.3 Survivorship curves for different cohorts <strong>of</strong> leaves in two co-occurring evergreen broadleaf<br />
trees, Symplocos prunifolia (left) and Machilus thunbergii (right). Log leaf number is plotted<br />
against calendar months. Open circles, leaves that appeared in 1995; open squares, leaves that<br />
appeared in 1994; open triangles, leaves that appeared in 1993; inverted triangles, leaves that<br />
appeared in 1992. (From Nitta and Ohsawa 1997)<br />
Japan. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevities ranged from 1.5 to 4.3 years, quite similar to the range<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1.4 to 3.8 years reported for 16 species <strong>of</strong> broad-leaved evergreen dwarf<br />
shrubs from Europe (Karlsson 1992). In the Japanese forest, the leaf longevity<br />
<strong>of</strong> Symplocos prunifolia was 1.5 years, with leaves emerging each spring but<br />
only being shed during spring and summer the next year (Fig. 5.3). In Machilus<br />
thunbergii with a mean leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> 2 years, the emergence <strong>of</strong> leaves in<br />
spring is more or less simultaneous with shedding <strong>of</strong> the 2-year-old leaf<br />
cohort, although the period <strong>of</strong> leaffall can be somewhat longer (Nitta and<br />
Ohsawa 1997). A similar pattern prevails in Castanopsis cuspidata, Quercus<br />
myrsinaefolia, and Quercus acuta. In S. prunifolia, Illicium religiosum, and<br />
Cleyera ochnacea, whose leaf emergence period was long, leaffall period was<br />
also long. Eurya japonica usually shows several periods <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence<br />
within a year, which are coordinated with periods <strong>of</strong> leaf shedding. This correspondence<br />
in the timing <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and leaffall is associated with<br />
translocation <strong>of</strong> resources from senescing to emerging leaves (Nitta and<br />
Ohsawa 1997). Navas et al. (2003) studied the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> 42 plant species<br />
in the Mediterranean region <strong>of</strong> south France, including some evergeen<br />
trees. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevities <strong>of</strong> the evergreen trees ranged from 488 to 802 days.<br />
Mediavilla and Escudero (2003b) reported leaf longevities <strong>of</strong> evergreen<br />
Quercus coccifera, Q. rotundifolia, Q. suber, and Ilex aquifolium to be between<br />
1 and 2 years in western Spain.<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Angiosperms<br />
Temperate Deciduous Trees and Shrubs<br />
The deciduous habit is characterized by the complete shedding <strong>of</strong> leaves during an<br />
unfavorable period, usually in response to freezing or drought stress. In temperate<br />
regions, deciduous (summergreen) trees that shed their leaves during winter <strong>of</strong>ten dominate<br />
the forested landscape. The summergreen, deciduous habit is a superficial characteristic<br />
<strong>of</strong> the tree that can mask the longevity <strong>of</strong> individual leaves during the<br />
summergreen period. All deciduous trees are superficially similar in that in spring many<br />
leaves appear on the tree and in fall leaves turn color and fall before winter. In reality,<br />
leaves emerging in spring on some species survive until autumn, but in other species all<br />
the leaves that emerged in spring have fallen by summer and been replaced by later<br />
emerging leaves that persist until autumn. For example, Kikuzawa (1983) followed<br />
leaf longevities in 41 tree species in the deciduous broad-leaved forests <strong>of</strong> Hokkaido,<br />
northern Japan. The shortest longevity was 80 days in Alnus hirsuta and the longest<br />
160 days in Quercus crispula and Fagus crenata. Species <strong>of</strong> Alnus are well known to<br />
have short leaf longevity (Kikuzawa 1978, 1980, 1983; Kikuzawa et al. 1979; Kanda<br />
1988, 1996; Tadaki et al. 1987). A comparable study <strong>of</strong> 16 deciduous tree species in the<br />
Great Smoky Mountains <strong>of</strong> southeastern North America (Lopez et al. 2008) found leaf<br />
longevities ranging from 116 days in Aesculus flava to 180 days in Carya cordiformis.<br />
Some shrub species in the understory <strong>of</strong> deciduous forests have an unusual summerdeciduous<br />
foliar habit. In Daphne kamtschatica, some leaves appear in early autumn<br />
(September) and overwinter, new leaves also expand the next spring (April), and then<br />
all the leaves are shed in June and July so that the plant is leafless in summer when the<br />
tree canopy casts deep shade (Kikuzawa 1984; Lei and Koike 1998).<br />
Tropical Trees and Shrubs<br />
Even in aseasonal tropical forests, leaf longevity is not particularly long. For<br />
example, we can infer from the data <strong>of</strong> Edwards and Grubb (1977) on litterfall and<br />
leaf biomass that the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> trees in a New Guinea forest averaged only<br />
1.4 years. Hatta and Darnaedi (2005) surveyed leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> nearly 100 tropical<br />
tree species in Bogor and Chibotas, Indonesia. Most trees had an evergreen habit<br />
but about half had a leaf longevity less than than 1 year. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevities ranged<br />
from only 2 months in Inga edulis and Cryptocarya obliqua to more than 30 months<br />
in Cinnamomum sintoc. In the understory <strong>of</strong> the Costa Rican tropical forest some<br />
trees have leaf longevities exceeding 2 years but others less (Bentley 1979).<br />
Homolanthus caloneurus is a pioneer tree in tropical lower montane forest with leaf<br />
longevity <strong>of</strong> only 0.8 years (Miyazawa et al. 2006). In Venezuelan mangrove forests,<br />
leaf half-lives were only 60 days in Laguncularia racemosa, 100 days in<br />
Rhizophora mangle, and 160 days in Avicennia germinans (Suarez 2003). Sixteen<br />
species in the genus Psychotria, all understory shrubs in tropical forests in Panama,<br />
have a remarkable range <strong>of</strong> leaf longevities, from 119 days in P. emetica to 870 days<br />
in P. limonensis.<br />
63
64 5 Phylogenetic Variation in <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Herbaceous Plants<br />
Flower and leaves <strong>of</strong> an aquatic floating-leaved plant (Nymphaea odorata)<br />
The leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> Ambrosia trifida ranged from 20 to 90 days depending on time<br />
<strong>of</strong> emergence, averaging about 50 days (Abul-Fatih and Bazzaz 1980). <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity<br />
<strong>of</strong> other annual forbs was comparable: Xanthium canadense, 30–40 days (Oikawa<br />
et al. 2006), Glycine max, 20–60 days (Miyaji and Tagawa 1979), and Linum<br />
usitatissimum, around 20–30 days (Bazzaz and Harper 1977). The leaf longevity <strong>of</strong><br />
perennial herbs is not markedly different, although tending to be higher. For example,<br />
Diemer (1998a) compared leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> perennials at different altitudes in the<br />
Austrian Alps. At 600 m, leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> 13 species was 71 days, very similar to<br />
the 68-day average for 16 species at 2,600 m. The average leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> 14<br />
herbaceous species in North American grasslands was 63 days (Craine et al. 1999).<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevities in 32 Swiss grass species ranged from 19 to 29 days for annuals<br />
versus 30 to 113 days for perennials (Ryser and Urbas 2000). Compiling earlier<br />
studies, Janišová (2007) reported annual grasses having leaves with half-lives in the<br />
range <strong>of</strong> 19–29 days, short-lived perennials with 30–45 days, and long-lived perennial<br />
with 111–200 days.<br />
Tsuchiya (1991) reported the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> floating leaves in aquatic herbs<br />
ranged from 13 to 55 days, averaging 25 days. Average leaf longevity for the<br />
floating-leaved Nymphaea tetragona and Brasenia schreberi were 30 and 25 days,<br />
respectively (Kunii and Aramaki 1987). Some floating-leaved species also produce<br />
emergent leaves with stouter petioles that have longevities from 35 to 57 days,<br />
averaging 45 days. For example, in Nelumbo nucifera the longevity <strong>of</strong> floating<br />
leaves was only 17 days, but the emergent leaves later in the season live for 30–50
<strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> Herbaceous Plants<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> life span (days)<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
MAY<br />
1987<br />
JUN JUL<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> leaf birth<br />
emergent<br />
floating<br />
AUG SEP OCT<br />
Fig. 5.4 <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> floating (open circles) and emergent leaves (closed circles) in Nelumbo<br />
nucifera, an aquatic macrophyte that produces floating leaves throughout the season and emergent<br />
leaves held on sturdy petioles later in the season. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> emergent leaves is significantly<br />
longer than that <strong>of</strong> floating leaves. (From Tsuchiya and Nohara 1989)<br />
days (Tsuchiya and Nohara 1989; Fig. 5.4). <strong>Leaf</strong> longevities <strong>of</strong> submerged plants<br />
are longer than those <strong>of</strong> floating-leaved aquatic plants and are comparable to those<br />
<strong>of</strong> herbaceous land plants. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity ranged from 40 days for Potamogeton<br />
crispus to 100 days for Myriophyllum spicatum (Yamamoto 1994). The leaf longevities<br />
<strong>of</strong> marine seagrasses are comparable, averaging 70 days and typically<br />
ranging from 25 to 170 days (Hemminga et al. 1999; Kamermans et al. 2001).<br />
65
Chapter 6<br />
Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
Sclerophyllous leaves <strong>of</strong> various bog plant species<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_6, © Springer 2011<br />
67
68 6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity is an integral part <strong>of</strong> a quintet <strong>of</strong> highly intercorrelated and<br />
functionally interdependent traits that organize the function <strong>of</strong> leaves as photosynthetic<br />
organs: photosynthetic capacity, A max ; leaf mass per unit area, LMA;<br />
foliar nitrogen content, N; and leaf dry matter content, LDMC (Wright et al.<br />
2004; Shipley et al. 2006). Photosynthetic capacity, a direct measure <strong>of</strong> foliar<br />
function, is the natural focal element in the quintet. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity, LMA, and<br />
foliar N initially drew attention as correlates <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity and<br />
only later were recognized as part <strong>of</strong> a unified set <strong>of</strong> traits characterizing overall<br />
variation in leaf function: the “leaf economic spectrum” (Wright et al. 2004).<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> dry matter content subsequently was identified as a little-studied trait that<br />
in fact underpinned the relationships among A max , LMA, foliar N, and leaf longevity<br />
(Shipley et al. 2006). Considering the innumerable characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves, including some that figure in theories <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity, what makes<br />
these the cardinal traits central in defining trends in variation <strong>of</strong> leaf function?<br />
There are basically two reasons these five traits have primacy. First, all these<br />
characteristics bear on the costs <strong>of</strong> leaf construction and the photosynthetic<br />
functions that repay those costs over the life <strong>of</strong> the leaf. Second, these traits<br />
show a wider and ecologically more consistent range <strong>of</strong> interspecific variation<br />
than other characteristics <strong>of</strong> leaves.<br />
Take leaf construction cost as an example <strong>of</strong> a foliar trait that one might well<br />
expect to be an important element in any quantification <strong>of</strong> leaf function given its<br />
central place in theories <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. In fact, the cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction per<br />
unit mass, which is what we can most readily measure, is a trait that turns out to<br />
be relatively invariant across both evergreen and deciduous species from a wide<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> ecosystems; hence, it is not particularly useful in interspecific comparisons<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf function. Griffin (1994) reviewed leaf construction costs from 87<br />
studies, which ranged from 1.08 to 2.09 g g −1 and averaged 1.54 g g −1 . Reviewing<br />
162 studies, Villar and Merino (2001) reported very similar results: an average <strong>of</strong><br />
1.52 g g −1 and a range from 1.08 to 1.92 g g −1 . The difference in leaf construction<br />
costs between evergreen and deciduous habits within plant families is not significant<br />
(Villar et al. 2006). One might instead consider that something as simple as<br />
variation in the total area <strong>of</strong> the leaf could affect a broad range <strong>of</strong> variation in leaf<br />
longevity despite the narrow range <strong>of</strong> leaf construction costs, but this is unlikely<br />
because it is the areal rate <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis that determines the rate <strong>of</strong> recovery<br />
<strong>of</strong> costs. We must look instead to one <strong>of</strong> the cardinal traits to make sense <strong>of</strong> this<br />
situation, to LMA. By using LMA, we can convert our measured leaf construction<br />
cost (c) per unit leaf weight to an estimate <strong>of</strong> the construction cost <strong>of</strong> leaves per<br />
unit area (C) :<br />
C = c · LMA<br />
(6.1)<br />
As c varies at most tw<strong>of</strong>old whereas LMA varies tenfold or more (Wright et al.<br />
2004), the interspecific variation <strong>of</strong> leaf architecture reflected in LMA clearly will<br />
have more influence on the time required for recovery <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> construction<br />
than simply the costs <strong>of</strong> the differing materials composing the leaf tissues. This<br />
concept helps illustrate why LMA is among the cardinal traits defining the principal
6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
axes <strong>of</strong> variation in foliar design (Wright et al. 2004) and, more generally, is an<br />
important index <strong>of</strong> plant strategies at the whole-plant level as well (Westoby 1998;<br />
Westoby et al. 2002).<br />
Specific leaf area, the inverse <strong>of</strong> leaf mass per area, was considered a key<br />
element in studies <strong>of</strong> plant productivity beginning in the early twentieth century<br />
(Blackman 1919; Clifford 1972). It was, however, only in the 1970s when traditional<br />
methods <strong>of</strong> growth analysis began to be superseded by direct measures <strong>of</strong><br />
photosynthesis using infrared gas analysis techniques (Šesták et al. 1971) that the<br />
positive correlation between A max and LMA (Fig. 6.1) gradually came into explicit<br />
discussion, through the interests first <strong>of</strong> plant breeders (Gifford and Evans 1981;<br />
Marini and Barden 1981) and then <strong>of</strong> ecologists (Oren et al. 1986; Koike 1988;<br />
Reich et al. 1991). Physiological ecologists were quick to recognize how<br />
anatomical variation in leaves contributed to differences in LMA and could in<br />
turn influence photosynthetic function (Nobel et al. 1975; Koike 1988). For<br />
example, Populus maximowiczii with a high LMA has relatively thick palisade<br />
and spongy mesophyll layers (Fig. 6.2), which facilitate high A max in its sunny,<br />
early successional environment (Koike 1988; Hanba et al. 1999; Terashima<br />
2003). Conversely, Acer palmatum is a species <strong>of</strong> shaded forest understory environments<br />
with a low LMA and a thin leaf lacking extensive internal air space and<br />
having low A max (Koike 1988). These sort <strong>of</strong> investigations firmly cemented LMA<br />
(or specific leaf weight, SLW, or its inverse, specific leaf area, SLA) as part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
growing constellation <strong>of</strong> traits critically associated with the photosynthetic capacity<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaves.<br />
Pn (mg CO 2 dm −2 hr −1 )<br />
24<br />
20<br />
16<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
MAY 25<br />
Peripheral<br />
Interiors<br />
Y=6.0+1.6x<br />
r=.83*<br />
JULY 16<br />
Y=−5.0+2.5x<br />
r=.70*<br />
4 8 12 4 8 12<br />
SLW (mg cm −2 )<br />
Fig. 6.1 Relationship between photosynthetic capacity (Pn) and leaf mass per unit area (LMA)<br />
(here, SLW) for individual leaves in the interior or peripheral canopy <strong>of</strong> orchard-grown apple trees<br />
just after leaf maturation (May 25) and in midsummer (July 16). (Redrawn from Marini and<br />
Barden 1981)<br />
69
70 6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
Fig. 6.2 Cross sections <strong>of</strong> leaves: left, Populus maximowiczii (Pm); right, Acer palmatum (Ap).<br />
(From Koike 1988)<br />
Photosynthesis and Foliar Nitrogen Content<br />
The relationship between photosynthetic capacity and foliar nitrogen content was<br />
brought into sharp focus in the collation by Field and Mooney (1986) <strong>of</strong> data on<br />
wild plants (Fig. 6.3) and the associated development <strong>of</strong> a theory for maximizing<br />
photosynthetic return on allocation <strong>of</strong> foliar nitrogen (Mooney and Gulmon 1979;<br />
Field 1983). Chlorophyll and photosynthetic enzymes account for the large part <strong>of</strong><br />
foliar N (Evans 1989), so it is not surprising that photosynthetic capacity is<br />
positively correlated with foliar nitrogen content. Field’s (1983) theory for optimal<br />
allocation <strong>of</strong> nitrogen builds on the leaf-level correlation between A max and foliar N<br />
(Fig. 6.3) to address the question <strong>of</strong> allocation <strong>of</strong> nitrogen across all the leaves on<br />
the plant. Field argued that the photosynthetic return on nitrogen investments is<br />
maximized when all leaves have the same slope [a in (6.2)] <strong>of</strong> the line tangent to<br />
the graph <strong>of</strong> daily photosynthetic gains on foliar nitrogen:<br />
a =∂A ∂ N<br />
day /<br />
(6.2)<br />
Although the optimization is scaled in terms <strong>of</strong> daily photosynthetic gains, there is<br />
a connection to the leaf-level relationship between A max and foliar N (Field and<br />
Mooney 1986) through the linear relationship between A day and A max for a given leaf<br />
(Field 1991; Zots and Winter 1996; Rosati and DeJong 2003). Daily photosynthetic<br />
gain increases asymptotically with foliar N for a family <strong>of</strong> curves that originate in
Assembling the Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
Net CO 2 uptake (nmol CO 2 g −1 s −1 )<br />
1000<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
k<br />
j<br />
0<br />
0 10 20<br />
i<br />
f<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> nitrogen (mmol g −1 )<br />
e<br />
a<br />
d<br />
c<br />
30 40 50<br />
Fig. 6.3 The increase <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity with foliar nitrogen content; each polygon<br />
bounds observations collated from different studies. (From Field and Mooney 1986)<br />
evolved differences in foliar design among species as well as in the ecophysiological<br />
responses <strong>of</strong> single leaves in differing microenvironments within a plant<br />
canopy (Fig. 6.4). The photosynthetic return on nitrogen investment at the wholeplant<br />
level is maximized when the tangents to the point where the curves for<br />
individual leaves cross the linear leaf-level relationship between A max and foliar N<br />
all pass through the origin (Hirose and Werger 1987a). Similarly, Koyama and<br />
Kikuzawa (2009) observed this linear relationship applied to not only A max but also<br />
A day in leaves <strong>of</strong> Helianthus tuberosus.<br />
Assembling the Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
By the early 1990s photosynthetic capacity was firmly linked to LMA and foliar N,<br />
but it took a seminal paper by Peter Reich and his colleagues (Reich et al. 1997) to<br />
focus attention on the high degree <strong>of</strong> coherence in the correlations among these<br />
three foliar traits. They collated data for 280 plant species to show that there were<br />
consistent correlations among A max , LMA, and foliar N (Fig. 6.5). As any one <strong>of</strong><br />
these traits characterizing foliar function varied from one species to another, they<br />
varied in concert, and these relationships were conserved across and within growth<br />
forms. This is compelling evidence that A max , LMA, and foliar N are integral parts<br />
<strong>of</strong> a unified suite <strong>of</strong> traits that affects the functionality <strong>of</strong> leaves.<br />
h<br />
g<br />
b<br />
71
72 6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
Net photosynthesis<br />
(nmol g −1 s −1 )<br />
a<br />
1000 1000<br />
100<br />
10<br />
1000<br />
A day<br />
100<br />
Specific leaf area (cm 2 /g)<br />
10<br />
Herbs<br />
Pioneers<br />
7<br />
21<br />
63<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> nitrogen (mg/g)<br />
Broad-leaved deciduous<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> N or A max<br />
Fig. 6.4 Interrelationships among daily photosynthetic capacity (A day ), maximum photosynthetic<br />
capacity (A max ), and foliar nitrogen (N). The relationship between A day and A max is linear (dashed<br />
line); A day increases asymptotically with foliar N dependent on evolutionarily constrained<br />
responses to the ambient environment <strong>of</strong> the leaf. The three asymptotic curves are examples <strong>of</strong><br />
possible A day –N relationships, in each case with the optimal allocation <strong>of</strong> N when the tangent lines<br />
to the curves are equivalent. When tangent lines correspond to lines originating at the origin,<br />
nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is optimum. Because <strong>Leaf</strong> N is proportional to A max , this relationship<br />
can be taken as a surrogate for the A day –A max relationship reported by Zots and Winter (1996)<br />
Net photosynthesis<br />
(nmol g −1 s −1 )<br />
b<br />
100<br />
10<br />
1000<br />
100<br />
Specific leaf area (cm 2 /g)<br />
Broad-leaved evergreen (leaf life-span > 1 year)<br />
Needle-leaved evergreen<br />
10 7<br />
21<br />
63<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> nitrogen (mg/g)<br />
Fig. 6.5 Consistent relationships among three key elements <strong>of</strong> foliar function for 111 species<br />
from six biomes (a) and for 170 species reported in the literature (b). (From Reich et al. 1997)<br />
Photosynthetic Function and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Reich and his colleagues (Reich et al. 1991, 1992) also had been investigating the<br />
relationship between A max and leaf longevity, as had others (Gower et al. 1993;<br />
Yamamoto 1994). Their 1997 paper (Reich et al. 1997) documented not only the
Photosynthetic Function and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Fig. 6.6 Relationships<br />
between leaf longevity (leaf<br />
lifespan) and other key elements<br />
<strong>of</strong> foliar function (Lit<br />
data, data reported in the literature).<br />
(From Reich et al.<br />
1997)<br />
1000<br />
Lit data c<br />
Net<br />
Field data<br />
r<br />
photosynthesis<br />
2 =0.78 b=−0.66 ± 0.03<br />
r2 100<br />
10<br />
=0.75 b=−0.69 ± 0.02<br />
r 2 =0.59 b=−0.34 ± 0.03<br />
r 2 =0.60 b=−0.32 ± 0.02<br />
r 2 =0.57 b=−0.46 ± 0.04<br />
r<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> life-span (months)<br />
2 =0.49 b=−0.39 ± 0.03<br />
10<br />
1 10100 e<br />
f<br />
100<br />
10<br />
1<br />
1000<br />
strong negative relationship between A max and leaf longevity but also a negative<br />
relationship <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity with foliar N and a positive relationship with LMA<br />
(SLA in Fig. 6.6). Longer-lived leaves consistently have more mass per unit area,<br />
lower concentrations <strong>of</strong> foliar N, and lower photosynthetic capacity, which supports<br />
the inclusion <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity as a cardinal trait affecting leaf function.<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity within a single biome varies about 100-fold among species, but<br />
the broad relationships with photosynthetic capacity, foliar N, and LMA persist<br />
across biomes as diverse as lowland tropical rainforest in Venezuela, subtropical<br />
lowland shore forest in South Carolina, montane cool temperate forest in North<br />
Carolina, desert and shrubland in New Mexico, a combination <strong>of</strong> temperate forest,<br />
bogs, and prairie in Wisconsin, and a combination <strong>of</strong> alpine tundra and subalpine<br />
forest in Colorado (USA) (Fig. 6.7). These areas vary greatly in mean<br />
100<br />
(nmol g −1 s −1 ) <strong>Leaf</strong> nitrogen (mg/g) Specific leaf area (cm 2 /g)<br />
73
74 6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
Fig. 6.7 Relationships between leaf longevity and leaf traits: differences among biomes.<br />
Relationships between leaf longevity and nitrogen concentration, nitrogen content, specific leaf<br />
area (SLA), photosynthetic rate per leaf weight, and leaf area are similar among diverse biomes.<br />
The slopes are similar, but intercepts sometimes differ. (From Reich et al. 1999)<br />
annual temperature from −3°C to 26°C and in altitude from sea level to 3,500 m.<br />
Despite the wide variations in environmental conditions among biomes, the<br />
slopes <strong>of</strong> these relationships between leaf longevity and other foliar traits do not<br />
differ significantly, but the intercepts do vary (Reich et al. 1997, 1999). The difference<br />
in intercept among biomes is the result <strong>of</strong> differences in LMA, which<br />
becomes lower when water is in good supply. For example, comparing leaves <strong>of</strong><br />
similar leaf longevity, LMA is significantly lower in wet high-altitude regions <strong>of</strong><br />
Colorado than in arid New Mexico. Similarly, the intercept <strong>of</strong> the relationship<br />
between leaf longevity and LMA in Australia is displaced to a lower value by<br />
aridity, but the displacement can also involve a shift up or down along the existing<br />
gradient (Fig. 6.8). The presence <strong>of</strong> relationships at the global scale does not<br />
necessarily mean the same relationships will be detected in regional data sets<br />
(Santiago and Wright 2007).
Deciding the Core Set <strong>of</strong> Cardinal Traits<br />
log (leaf longevity)<br />
Translocation<br />
towards lower<br />
precipitation<br />
Translocation<br />
towards<br />
lower soil P<br />
concentration<br />
log (LMA)<br />
Fig. 6.8 Scheme showing translocations <strong>of</strong> relationship between leaf longevity and leaf mass area<br />
(LMA) by changes in precipitation and soil nutrient conditions. (From Wright et al. 2002; drawn<br />
after Westoby et al. 2002; redrawn by KK)<br />
Deciding the Core Set <strong>of</strong> Cardinal Traits<br />
These emerging patterns were a stimulus to many studies that led to a much larger<br />
database against which the generality <strong>of</strong> the relationships could be tested. Peter<br />
Reich, Ian Wright, Mark Westoby, and many others (Wright et al. 2004) pooled data<br />
for more than 2,500 plant species and showed definitively that A max , LMA, foliar N,<br />
and leaf longevity were indeed integral parts <strong>of</strong> what they called the leaf economic<br />
spectrum. Their data documented the range <strong>of</strong> values to be expected for the key traits<br />
as well as the correlations among them: A max ranged from 5 to 660 nmol g −1 s −1 , foliar<br />
N ranged from 0.2% to 6.4%, LMA ranged from 14 to 1,500 g m −2 , and leaf longevity<br />
ranged from 0.9 to 288 months. They were able to compare values on a mass versus<br />
area basis and found that the correlations among traits were strongest when expressed<br />
on a mass basis. Shipley et al. (2006) reanalyzed the relationships among<br />
four cardinal traits in the leaf economic spectrum that are highly intercorrelated<br />
(A max , foliar N, LMA, and leaf longevity) and showed that a fifth trait in fact underpinned<br />
the relationships among these four foliar traits: leaf dry matter content<br />
(LDMC). LDMC, the ratio <strong>of</strong> leaf dry weight to fresh weight, is an index <strong>of</strong> investments<br />
in structural versus fluid cell content. Niinemets et al. (2007a) reported a<br />
strong correlation between LDMC and leaf longevity for 44 species in deciduous<br />
forests in Estonia and showed that species with higher LDMC had cell walls more<br />
resistant to deformation under turgor pressure. Compared to woody species, herbaceous<br />
species have lower LDMC, shorter leaf longevity, and greater A max (Ellsworth<br />
et al. 2004; Wright et al. 2004; Shipley et al. 2006; Niinemets et al. 2007b).<br />
75
76 6 Key Elements <strong>of</strong> Foliar Function<br />
There is no end to the number <strong>of</strong> foliar traits that might characterize essential<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> foliar function and therefore merit inclusion in a comprehensive<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> the leaf economic spectrum. For example, foliar phosphorus and dark<br />
respiration rate are likely candidates (Westoby et al. 2002; Wright et al. 2004), but<br />
the data supporting their inclusion are fewer than are those for the four primary<br />
traits. A subsequent analysis (Wright et al. 2005a, b) gave further support to<br />
inclusion <strong>of</strong> foliar respiration and also suggested inclusion <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic<br />
nitrogen use efficiency (PNUE) among the cardinal traits. In the context <strong>of</strong> theory<br />
for leaf longevity, inclusion <strong>of</strong> respiration makes some sense as a possible index <strong>of</strong><br />
the ongoing costs <strong>of</strong> foliar maintenance that could augment the initial construction<br />
cost when estimating the timing <strong>of</strong> leaf senescence. PNUE makes less sense as a<br />
unitary cardinal trait in the context <strong>of</strong> theory for leaf longevity because it is simply<br />
the ratio <strong>of</strong> two parameters already accounted for in the syndrome <strong>of</strong> traits central<br />
to foliar function. In general, it behooves us to look beyond correlations to a<br />
minimal set <strong>of</strong> traits that can be integrated in a mechanistic model <strong>of</strong> foliar<br />
function, in the present context a model that can predict leaf longevity.
Chapter 7<br />
Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Bud break with 1-year old, sclerophyllous leaves <strong>of</strong> an evergreen tree, Camellia japonica<br />
The functional relationships among key traits defining leaf function do not stand in<br />
isolation from functionality at the level <strong>of</strong> the whole plant. Hence, variation in leaf<br />
longevity is contingent not only on variation in foliar design, but also on trade-<strong>of</strong>fs<br />
involving other aspects <strong>of</strong> plant function, which include aspects <strong>of</strong> functional organization<br />
from the level <strong>of</strong> single shoots to the entire canopy.<br />
Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
In temperate regions where the length <strong>of</strong> the growing season sets a limit on leaf longevity,<br />
deciduous species with indeterminate shoot growth can be expected to have<br />
shorter-lived leaves than species with determinate shoot growth. This is the case in<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_7, © Springer 2011<br />
77
78 7 Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
temperate deciduous broad-leaved forests, where the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> species with<br />
determinate shoot growth such as Fagus crenata, Quercus crispula, and Carpinus<br />
cordata was 160–180 days, whereas leaf longevity in Alnus hirsuta with indeterminate<br />
shoot growth was 80–90 days (Kikuzawa 1983, 1988). Because there is no limitation<br />
set by the length <strong>of</strong> the growing period in aseasonal tropical forests, the same<br />
expectation need not apply, but in fact the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> species with indeterminate<br />
shoot growth still tends to be less than those with determinate shoot growth. <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
longevity was 1–4 months in Heliocarpus appendiculatus (Ackerly and Bazzaz 1995)<br />
with indeterminate shoot growth. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> Dendrocnide excelsa, a species in<br />
subtropical and cool temperate rainforests with indeterminate shoot growth, was<br />
about 7 months compared to 20 months in species such as Doryphora sassafras,<br />
Ceratopetalum apetalum, and Noth<strong>of</strong>agus moorei with determinate shoot growth<br />
(Lowman 1992). There is clearly endogenous organization <strong>of</strong> the timing <strong>of</strong> shoot<br />
growth and leaf turnover.<br />
In species with indeterminate shoot growth, the birth rate <strong>of</strong> a leaf (r) is given<br />
by the ratio <strong>of</strong> standing leaf number (N) on a shoot and leaf longevity (L) from (4.6)<br />
(Ackerly 1996).<br />
r = N / L<br />
(7.1)<br />
Designating 1/r = P, P represents the interval between emergence <strong>of</strong> leaves,<br />
which is called the plastochron interval (Maxsymowych 1959). Using P, we can<br />
rewrite (7.1) as<br />
L = N· P<br />
(7.2)<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity thus can be estimated as the product <strong>of</strong> number <strong>of</strong> leaves and the<br />
plastochron interval. Ackerly (1996) compared species with leaf longevity from 32<br />
to 5,200 days and standing leaf number per shoot ranging from 3 to 45 (Fig. 7.1).<br />
For species with indeterminate shoot growth, leaf longevity largely depends on the<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover, with the oldest leaf being lost as a new leaf emerges. If the<br />
growth rate and loss rate <strong>of</strong> leaves are equivalent, the canopy will be in steady state.<br />
Moreover, if photosynthetic capacity is determined by the position <strong>of</strong> leaves as<br />
expected in (4.13), then the canopy photosynthesis at any time should be equivalent<br />
to the photosynthetic gain <strong>of</strong> a single leaf throughout its life: in other words, there<br />
appears to be an ergodic character to the functional relationships between<br />
the leaf and canopy levels (Kikuzawa et al. 2009). <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity in this steadystate<br />
condition then is determined by the appearance rate <strong>of</strong> leaves, which will<br />
reflect the shoot growth rate.<br />
Plant Growth Rates and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
A negative correlation between the relative growth rate <strong>of</strong> plants and leaf longevity<br />
is expected when a tree canopy is in a stable state with new leaves produced at the<br />
same rate as leaves dropping; then, leaf longevity is determined simply by the inverse
80 7 Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
leaves (Coley 1983). These relationships are not considered causal in and <strong>of</strong><br />
themselves because tree growth is affected by very many other traits, but it is clear<br />
there is a functional linkage between overall growth and leaf turnover. This linkage<br />
is also apparent in the relationship between wood density and leaf longevity.<br />
Fast-growing, early successional species on Barro Colorado Island such as Cecropia<br />
insignis with a wood density <strong>of</strong> only 0.15 g cm −3 had shorter leaf longevity than<br />
slower-growing, late successional species with wood densities in the range <strong>of</strong> 0.34–<br />
0.64 g cm −3 (King 1994). Ishida et al. (2008) report the same trend for woody species<br />
on the subtropical Bonin Islands. Chave et al. (2009) have characterized a “wood<br />
economic spectrum” that associates increasing wood density with slower growth<br />
rates, which suggests these relationships may prevail generally across species.<br />
Seedling Growth and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
The relationship between growth rate and leaf longevity also is expressed at the<br />
seedling stage where the initial growth <strong>of</strong> current-year seedlings depends on seed<br />
size. For example, seed size varies among deciduous broad-leaved trees in northern<br />
Japan from nearly 10 g in Aesculus turbinata to less than 1 mg in Betula platyphylla<br />
(Seiwa and Kikuzawa 1989). A large-seeded species such as A. turbinata typically<br />
attains the large part <strong>of</strong> its annual height growth within a month <strong>of</strong> germination<br />
(Fig. 7.3). In contrast, the height growth <strong>of</strong> a small-seeded species such as B. platyphylla<br />
has a long lag before shoot growth takes <strong>of</strong>f later in the season. The seedling<br />
shoot growth <strong>of</strong> the large-seeded species is essentially determinate, the small-seeded<br />
is essentially indeterminate, and the leaf longevities are correspondingly long and<br />
short, respectively (Seiwa and Kikuzawa 1991). The leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> seedlings,<br />
however, is shorter than that <strong>of</strong> adult trees for both large- and small-seeded species,<br />
perhaps because the costs <strong>of</strong> transport associated with each leaf are greater in adults<br />
than in seedlings (Kikuzawa and Ackerly 1999). There is, however, no significant<br />
difference in leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> saplings and adult trees (Reich et al. 2004).<br />
Fig. 7.3 Growth curves <strong>of</strong> seedlings from germination for Betula platyphylla (Bp), a smallseeded<br />
species, and for Aesculus turbinata (At), a large-seeded species at open (open circles) and<br />
shaded (closed circles) sites. (From Seiwa and Kikuzawa 1989, 1991; redrawn by KK)
Variation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> with Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
Variation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> with Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity can vary among different leaf cohorts within individual plants. In Betula<br />
species, the leaves that emerge initially in early spring and leaves that emerge successively<br />
until summer differ in morphology (Kozlowski and Clausen 1966), photosynthetic<br />
traits (Koike and Sakagami 1985; Koike 1990; Miyazawa and Kikuzawa 2004),<br />
and their parent shoot morphology (long and short shoots: Yagi and Kikuzawa 1999;<br />
Yagi 2000; Ishihara and Kikuzawa 2004). <strong>Longevity</strong> for early leaves in Betula grossa<br />
was around 160–180 days, significantly longer than the 110–130 days for late leaves<br />
(Miyazawa and Kikuzawa 2004). Similar structural differentiation <strong>of</strong> long and short<br />
shoots was also observed in Halimium atriplicifolium, but leaf longevity on long shoots<br />
<strong>of</strong> this Mediterranean subshrub was only marginally longer than on short shoots,<br />
13.2 versus 10.6 months (Castro-Diez et al. 2005). Adenostoma fasciculatum, a shrub<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mediterranean regions in North America, also has short shoots and long shoots<br />
but with leaves on long shoots living only a year compared to 2 years on short shoots<br />
(Jow et al. 1980). <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity on the Asian vine Akebia trifolia varied from less than<br />
10 days to more than 1 year, irrespective <strong>of</strong> emergence timing (Koyama and Kikuzawa<br />
2008). In wild strawberry, Fragaria virginiana, leaves emerging in early spring had<br />
longevities <strong>of</strong> about 60 days compared to 130 days for those emerging in early summer<br />
and 250 days for those emerging in fall and overwintering (Jurik and Chabot 1986).<br />
Sydes (1984) observed similar contrasts in other herbaceous species between leaves<br />
produced early in the growing season with longevities about 60 days compared<br />
to 200 or even 300 days in leaves produced in fall and overwintering (Fig. 7.4).<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> leaf-fall<br />
Mar 1, 2005<br />
Nov 1<br />
Jul 1<br />
Mar 1, 2004<br />
Nov 1<br />
Jul 1<br />
Mar 1, 2003<br />
Mar 1, 2003<br />
May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1<br />
Leaves on short shoots<br />
+ Leaves on long shoots<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence<br />
Nov 1 Jan 1, 2004 Mar 1<br />
Leaves on secondary growth shoots<br />
Mean daily temperature < 5C<br />
81<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> lifespan<br />
365 Days<br />
0 Days<br />
Fig. 7.4 Date <strong>of</strong> leaf appearance, date <strong>of</strong> leaffall, and resulting longevity for individual leaves <strong>of</strong><br />
Akebia trifoliata (n = 1,423). The two oblique lines are isoclines for leaf lifespan <strong>of</strong> 0 and 365<br />
days, respectively. Shading indicates period unfavorable for photosynthesis. (From Koyama and<br />
Kikuzawa 2008)
82 7 Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 7.1 Self-Shading and <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence<br />
There is a dichotomy between plants that produce essentially all their leaves<br />
each year in a single burst (simultaneous-type leaf emergence) and those that<br />
produce leaves in a steady progression throughout all or part <strong>of</strong> the year<br />
(successive-leafing type). As all potential leaves appear at once at the start <strong>of</strong><br />
a growing season in the simultaneous type, all the leaves <strong>of</strong> this type can carry<br />
out photosynthesis throughout the growing season. However, if many leaves<br />
are attached on a shoot, leaves in lower positions will be shaded by those in<br />
upper positions (self-shading), a disadvantage that can be reduced by the orientation<br />
<strong>of</strong> shoots and leaves (Kikuzawa et al. 1996). By this means, all the<br />
leaves on a shoot can receive sunlight evenly and the photosynthetic performance<br />
<strong>of</strong> the shoot will increase, although inclining the shoot will also reduce<br />
the height growth <strong>of</strong> the plant and increase biomechanical support costs. In<br />
contrast, successive leafing essentially is an alternative method to avoid selfshading<br />
within the plant canopy. The first leaf produced on a growing shoot<br />
will enjoy full sunlight until the shoot extends and the second leaf emerges<br />
and begins to shade the first leaf, and so on as successive leaves emerge.<br />
Consequently, there are some linkages among leaf phenology (leaf emergence<br />
pattern), self-shading, and shoot architecture (Kikuzawa et al. 1996;<br />
Kikuzawa2003) in deciduous broad-leaved species. Simultaneous leafing<br />
species (Fagus crenata, Quercus crispula, Tilia japonica) have strongly<br />
inclined shoots and avoid self-shading whereas successive leafing species<br />
(Alnus hirsuta, A. sieboldiana, Betula platyphylla) have upright shoots<br />
(Kikuzawa et al. 1996). Similar linkages between leaf phenology and architecture<br />
exist in herbaceous species as well (Kikuzawa 2003).<br />
Canopy Architecture and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Intrinsic controls on the development <strong>of</strong> canopy architecture determine the degree<br />
<strong>of</strong> mutual shading among different branches and leaves within a canopy and hence<br />
influence the longevity <strong>of</strong> leaves throughout the canopy. If shoot elongation is<br />
rapid and leaf turnover on the elongating shoot high, the inner canopy <strong>of</strong> the tree<br />
tends to become leafless as the outer canopy expands. The inner canopy <strong>of</strong> Alnus<br />
sieboldiana, a species that elongates upright apical shoots with short leaf longevity,<br />
illustrates this canopy-hollowing phenomenon (Shirakawa and Kikuzawa 2009).<br />
Crown hollowing incurs an increasing cost in maintaining interior branches to<br />
support the leafy shoots in the expanding outer canopy, perhaps explaining why<br />
crown hollowing occurs mostly in species that never attain heights sufficient to<br />
occupy the upper strata <strong>of</strong> mature forests. In some early successional trees canopy<br />
hollowing is diminished by production <strong>of</strong> dimorphic shoots, long shoots that expand
Canopy Architecture and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
the canopy periphery and short shoots that produce leaves along interior branches<br />
without elongating internodes. Long shoots function in both space acquisition and<br />
leaf display, but short shoots only play a role <strong>of</strong> leaf display. Short shoots can persist<br />
over many years along interior branches, producing only a few relatively longlived<br />
leaves and thus reducing canopy hollowing in species <strong>of</strong> Betula and Populus<br />
(Critchfield 1960; Pollard 1970; Isebrands and Nelson 1982) and some Acer species<br />
as well (Critchfield 1971; Sakai 1987). Such differentiation <strong>of</strong> leaf display and<br />
space acquisition through variation in shoot structure and leaf longevity is a general<br />
phenomenon, with the short shoot–long shoot dichotomy only a particular case <strong>of</strong><br />
a broader range <strong>of</strong> structural variation in shoots (Takenaka 1997; Yagi and<br />
Kikuzawa 1999). For example, shifts in the relationships between bud dormancy,<br />
needle longevity, and total needle area per unit shoot length in some evergreen<br />
trees alter the balance between leaf display and space acquisition in canopy development<br />
and reduce canopy hollowing (Takenaka 1997). In some evergreen broadleaved<br />
tree species such as Cleyera japonica, leaves at the inner canopy have<br />
prolonged longevity, or burst bud only after some years <strong>of</strong> dormancy, thus avoiding<br />
canopy hollowing (Suzuki 2002).<br />
The balance between leaf display and space acquisition in canopy development<br />
is inextricably linked to leaf longevity through the feedback to leaf lifetime carbon<br />
gain. Maximizing the capture <strong>of</strong> light energy is not simply a question <strong>of</strong> growing<br />
taller to shade competing neighbors, but also a question <strong>of</strong> how effectively a plant<br />
captures light from the part <strong>of</strong> the overall plant canopy surface that it occupies.<br />
There is a trade-<strong>of</strong>f between growing taller to shade neighbors and spreading<br />
laterally to claim more surface area in the upper canopy <strong>of</strong> the plant stand. For<br />
example, a tree maximizing only height growth could simply extend its apical<br />
shoots straight and upright, but many canopy tree species in mature temperate<br />
deciduous forests such as Fagus, Quercus, or Acer in fact have determinate shoot<br />
growth and apical shoots declined toward the horizontal. These trees avoid selfshading<br />
among leaves within the canopy by branch and shoot angles that allow<br />
light penetration to deeper layers <strong>of</strong> the canopy (Posada et al. 2009). On the<br />
other hand, successional tree species with indeterminate shoot growth such as<br />
Alnus or Betula elongate their apical shoots strongly upward, growing tall more<br />
quickly but with a higher degree <strong>of</strong> self-shading in their canopy (Kikuzawa et al.<br />
1996). Such successive leafers can attain higher photosynthetic rates by receiving<br />
full sunlight at the time <strong>of</strong> first leaf appearance. When the first leaf’s photosynthetic<br />
rate declines with aging, a second leaf appears and again receives full<br />
sunlight at the shoot apex but also shades the preceding leaf on the shoot and so<br />
forth. Thus, successive leafing, high but early decline <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic rate, and<br />
short leaf longevity are functionally linked with one another. In contrast, leaves<br />
appearing simultaneously on a determinate shoot mutually shade one another<br />
from the initial stage <strong>of</strong> leaf appearance, and thus plants avoid self-shading by<br />
more horizontal placement <strong>of</strong> shoots, branching angles, leaf angles, and the like.<br />
Simultaneous leafing, lower but persistent photosynthetic rates, relatively long<br />
leaf longevity, and a more horizontally oriented canopy structure are also parts <strong>of</strong><br />
83
84 7 Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
a functional syndrome (Kikuzawa 1995a, b). Similarly contrasting morphological<br />
and phenological characteristics related to light interception are found in the<br />
essentially horizontal leaves <strong>of</strong> herbaceous forb species (Kikuzawa 2003),<br />
although not in unbranched graminoid species that typically orient their leaves<br />
near vertical in turf or cespitose clumps.<br />
Box 7.2 Impact <strong>of</strong> Deep Versus Partial Shading<br />
The way that individual leaves react to shading depends on the light regime in<br />
which the entire plant exists. If the entire plant is subjected to low insolation,<br />
as in forest understory species, then leaf longevity is relatively long and leaves<br />
lower in the canopy do not translocate resources to less-shaded leaves higher<br />
in the canopy. Conversely, leaves on trees in the forest canopy exist in a broad<br />
range <strong>of</strong> insolation regimes from well lighted in the upper canopy to progressively<br />
more and more partially shaded deeper in the canopy. In this case, leaf<br />
longevity is shortened in proportion to shading, and resources are translocated<br />
to the upper, brighter portion <strong>of</strong> the canopy. These responses reflect a balance<br />
between optimization <strong>of</strong> resource gain and loss at the leaf level versus the<br />
whole-plant level.<br />
Canopy Heterogeneity and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
The insolation regimes <strong>of</strong> leaves set by intrinsic controls on canopy architecture in<br />
a uniform and stable light regime can be disrupted by external influences that create<br />
asymmetry such as adjacent objects, forest edges, or gaps. In such instances, variation<br />
in leaf longevity within individual plants does not appear to follow the general<br />
pattern seen between individuals and species but is actually reversed: leaf longevity<br />
on shaded shoots is shortened compared to sunlit shoots. For example, Miyaji and<br />
Tagawa (1973) reported that shaded leaves in the lower canopy <strong>of</strong> a Tilia japonica
Canopy Heterogeneity and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
sapling were shed earlier than sunlit leaves in the upper canopy. Takenaka (2000)<br />
observed individual Cinnamomum japonicum growing at more than 10%, 5% to<br />
10%, and less than 5% full sunlight in the understory <strong>of</strong> evergreen broad-leaved<br />
forest. Each tree had some shoots in each <strong>of</strong> the three insolation classes. Takenaka<br />
(2000) compared leaf longevity on shoots in more-shaded positions <strong>of</strong> better insolated<br />
individuals, and vice versa. He found that the better insolated were individuals,<br />
the stronger was the contrast in shoot growth and leaf turnover between their<br />
well- and poorly insolated shoots. Leaves on poorly insolated shoots were shed<br />
more rapidly than on more-sunlit shoots. This situation in which faster-growing<br />
shoots inhibit slower-growing ones is a form <strong>of</strong> apical control referred to as correlative<br />
inhibition (Cline 1997; Umeki and Seino 2003). If this more rapid shedding <strong>of</strong><br />
shaded leaves within individual plants is simply the direct consequence <strong>of</strong> the shading<br />
rather than apical control (Cline 1997), there should be a correlation between<br />
leaf longevity and plant size in a dense plant population. That is not the case. There<br />
is no significant correlation between mean leaf longevity and individual plant size<br />
and hence shading in dense plantings <strong>of</strong> Xanthium canadense; mean leaf longevity<br />
ranged from 20 to 50 days irrespective <strong>of</strong> plant size (Hikosaka and Hirose 2001).<br />
In summary, individual plants shorten leaf longevity on poorly insolated shoots<br />
when only part <strong>of</strong> the plant is shaded, but not when the entire plant is shaded.<br />
There is evidence, however, that in more mature trees the relationship between<br />
leaf longevity and insolation reverts to the norm. Mizobuchi (1989) reported that in<br />
large, open-grown Cinnamomum camphora growing on a university campus in<br />
central Japan, leaves on the better insolated southern side <strong>of</strong> the canopy had a halflife<br />
<strong>of</strong> about 1 year compared to almost 2 years on the north side. Osada et al. (2001)<br />
studied leaf longevity over more than 3 years at different heights in Dipterocarpus<br />
sublamellatus, Elateriospermum tapos, and Xanthophyllum stipitatum – trees all<br />
more than 30 m tall growing in a mature tropical rainforest. They found that leaf<br />
longevity consistently is shortest in the sunlit upper canopy <strong>of</strong> individual trees.<br />
Similar results were obtained for 15 tree species in a tropical forest that differ in<br />
maximum height (Meinzer 2003), suggesting that tree maturity rather than just tree<br />
height determines the pattern <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity with the tree canopy. Miyaji et al.<br />
(1997) studied leaf longevity in 3-m-tall cacao trees (Theobroma cacao) growing<br />
under shelter trees in a tropical plantation. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity changed depending on the<br />
timing <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence and level in the canopy (Fig. 7.5). <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> upper<br />
leaves ranged from 120 to 200 days, the middle layer from 180 to 250 days, and the<br />
lower layer from 280 to 370 days; leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> bearing-age cacao trees was<br />
longer in the more-shaded, lower canopy. There may be a size-dependent shift in the<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> branch autonomy such that in the transition from saplings to trees a greater<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> branch autonomy ensues as apical control shifts from the sapling apex to<br />
individual branches in the tree crown. In this vein, we can rephrase our overall summary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the relationship between insolation and leaf longevity. When the autonomous<br />
unit organizing shoot growth is wholly shaded (an individual plant or major<br />
branch), then leaf longevity becomes longer; conversely, when a shoot is only a<br />
poorly insolated part <strong>of</strong> a larger autonomous unit, then its leaf longevity is shortened<br />
relative to the sunlit part <strong>of</strong> the autonomous system controlling shoot growth.<br />
85
86 7 Endogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Apparent no. <strong>of</strong> living leaves on 100 branches<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
UL<br />
ML<br />
LL<br />
Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Jul. Aug.Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.<br />
1983 1984<br />
Fig. 7.5 <strong>Leaf</strong> survivorship curves in the upper (UL), middle (ML), and lower (LL) layers <strong>of</strong> the<br />
canopy in 7-year-old Theobroma cacao in a Brazilian plantation under a canopy <strong>of</strong> shelter trees.<br />
Different symbols represent cohorts <strong>of</strong> leaves emerging at different times. All leaves in the upper<br />
layer had fallen by November 1984, while some leaves still remained in the middle and lower<br />
layers. (From Miyaji et al. 1997)
Chapter 8<br />
Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Early spring ice storm, Ithaca, New York<br />
The normal value <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity for a species reflects functional relationships at<br />
the foliar and whole-plant level, but longevity can be both prolonged and shortened<br />
by environmental conditions. From first principles, leaf longevity is expected to<br />
increase in environments where critical resources are scarce. This generalization is<br />
rooted in a cost–benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity arguing that the nature <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
in resource-limited environments imposes a long payback period on the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
their construction (Chabot and Hicks 1982; Kikuzawa 1991). In this view, selection<br />
pressure is expected to act to prolong leaf longevity in light-, water-, or nutrientlimited<br />
environments. This expectation is consistent with observations among species<br />
and plants in differing resource environments, but not within individual plants.<br />
The expectation applies to conditions <strong>of</strong> resource limitation, not stress conditions<br />
that near or exceed the limits to a species’ survival and reproduction. Stress events<br />
such as deep drought, unseasonal frost and freezing, lengthy flooding, salinity, air<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_8, © Springer 2011<br />
87
88 8 Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
pollutants, and attack by herbivores or pathogens each impose qualitatively different<br />
challenges to leaf function (Kozlowski and Pallardy 2002), which we also address<br />
in this chapter.<br />
Box 8.1 Succession<br />
Vegetation is inherently dynamic: plants grow and interact with one another<br />
while responding to changing environmental conditions. Occasionally these<br />
dynamics in a plant community are punctuated by more disruptive events that<br />
destroy some part <strong>of</strong> the plant community. Succession refers to the sequence<br />
in which plants colonize and develop in an area after such a disturbance. A<br />
successional sequence can be initiated by disturbances at large spatial scales<br />
such as volcanic eruption, windstorms, fire, flooding, and landslides or at<br />
small spatial scales by simply the death <strong>of</strong> a single tree. In the case <strong>of</strong> a big<br />
volcanic eruption such as that <strong>of</strong> Krakatau in 1883, all the vegetation on this<br />
isolated oceanic island was killed by a thick layer <strong>of</strong> ash and the succession<br />
began on barren land. Even in this extreme case plants and animals dispersed<br />
to the island within several decades, and more than 200 species were recorded<br />
on Krakatau only 50 years after the eruption. Succession typically is initiated<br />
less dramatically and involves colonization from nearby undisturbed areas.<br />
Because stochastic factors play a large role in dispersal and colonization, we<br />
cannot forecast precisely the course <strong>of</strong> succession, but we can recognize species<br />
that during early versus late stages <strong>of</strong> succession have characteristic suites<br />
<strong>of</strong> features. Early successional plant species produce abundant small seeds,<br />
have a high growth rate with low stem density, high maximum photosynthetic<br />
rates, and short leaf longevity. Late successional plant species produce fewer<br />
but large seeds, have low growth rates with high stem density, low maximum<br />
photosynthetic rates, and long leaf longevity.<br />
Insolation and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Diverse lines <strong>of</strong> evidence among and within species support the generalization<br />
that leaf longevity is relatively short in sunny compared to shaded environments.<br />
Early successional species are widely observed to have shorter leaf longevity<br />
than late successional species (Kikuzawa 1978, 1982, 1983, 1988; Koike 1988),<br />
which is consistent with the greater insolation typical <strong>of</strong> sites after disturbance.<br />
Similarly, in the understory <strong>of</strong> both tropical forests (Reich et al. 1991, 2004) and<br />
mature temperate forests (Kikuzawa 1984, 1988, 1989; Lei and Koike 1998),<br />
species typically have long-lived leaves, some surviving more than a single season.<br />
If a species occurs in both sun and shade, leaf longevity is long in the<br />
shaded environment (Kikuzawa 1989; Sterck 1999; Reich et al. 2004).<br />
For example, in a Southeast Asian tropical forest, leaf survivorship <strong>of</strong> the
Insolation and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> survival ratio<br />
1<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
Gap<br />
Understory<br />
0.4<br />
0<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> age (months)<br />
Fig. 8.1 Survivorship <strong>of</strong> Elateriospermum tapos (Euphorbiaceae) leaves on the forest floor and<br />
in canopy gaps. (From Osada et al. 2003)<br />
shade-tolerant tree Elateriospermum tapos was greater in the understory than in<br />
canopy gaps (Osada et al. 2003; Fig. 8.1). Kai et al. (1991) reported similar<br />
observations for the semideciduous shrub Ligustrum obtusifolium and then<br />
experimentally confirmed the role <strong>of</strong> insolation in affecting leaf longevity. They<br />
subjected cloned plants growing in a nursery to 7%, 20%, and 100% full sun; in<br />
100% sunlight, almost all leaves were shed before mid-December, whereas in<br />
the shaded plots some leaves remained until the next autumn. The evergreen<br />
shrub Daphniphyllum macropodum normally retains leaves 4–5 years in the<br />
understory <strong>of</strong> deciduous broad-leaved forests but only 2 years in canopy gaps; a<br />
similar trend is observed in the low-growing evergreen Pachysandra terminalis<br />
(Kikuzawa 1989). Finally, leaf survivorship in the evergreen shrub Rhododendron<br />
maximum decreased for plants growing in the understory <strong>of</strong> more-open forests<br />
from 5 years under an evergreen canopy, to 4 years under a deciduous canopy,<br />
and only 3 years in canopy gaps (Nilsen 1986; Fig. 8.2). Because canopy gaps<br />
arise suddenly, existing leaves on understory species can be subjected abruptly<br />
to substantially greater insolation; understory species with fairly long-lived<br />
leaves should be more tolerant <strong>of</strong> high insolation after gap formation than those<br />
with relatively short-lived leaves (Lovelock et al. 1998). Lovelock et al. tested<br />
this expectation by assessing the degree <strong>of</strong> photoinhibition in 12 tree species<br />
from tropical rainforest, finding that species with long-lived leaves (more than<br />
3.5 years) were more tolerant <strong>of</strong> abrupt increases in light than species with shortlived<br />
leaves (less than 2 years).<br />
89
90 8 Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Fig. 8.2 <strong>Leaf</strong> survivorship<br />
curves for Rhododendron<br />
maximum in different light<br />
regimes: O canopy gap, D<br />
deciduous broad-leaved forest<br />
floor, E evergreen forest floor.<br />
(From Nilsen 1986)<br />
Relative <strong>Leaf</strong> Number<br />
Aridity and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
On the assumption that leaf longevity is governed by the time required to pay back<br />
the costs <strong>of</strong> leaf construction, we can generally expect sublethal levels <strong>of</strong> water<br />
shortage to be associated with longer-lived leaves. There is a variety <strong>of</strong> experimental<br />
and observational evidence supporting this point <strong>of</strong> view at the level <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
species, but interspecific comparisons <strong>of</strong> the relationships between water<br />
availability and leaf longevity are not straightforward.<br />
The contrast between the deciduous and the evergreen habit illustrates the ambiguities<br />
<strong>of</strong> the relationship between water availability and leaf longevity. The vegetation<br />
<strong>of</strong> regions prone to water shortage can include both drought-deciduous species<br />
that drop their leaves at the onset <strong>of</strong> a dry season and evergreen species that retain<br />
leaves through the dry season. Drought-deciduous plants usually have higher maximum<br />
photosynthetic rates than evergreen plants (Comstock and Ehleringer 1986;<br />
Ackerly 2004), which is consistent with the general relationship between leaf<br />
longevity and photosynthetic rate. On the other hand, the co-occurrence <strong>of</strong> species<br />
with different foliar habits indicates that leaf longevity is only part <strong>of</strong> a larger syndrome<br />
<strong>of</strong> adaptive alternatives to water shortage. A study comparing species with<br />
short-lived versus long-lived leaves in the understory <strong>of</strong> a seasonal tropical forest<br />
in Panama illustrates this point (Tobin et al. 1999). Species with long-lived leaves<br />
had deeper root systems than species with short-lived leaves and thus could avoid<br />
drought conditions during the dry season. We cannot expect a simple pattern <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
longevity in relationship to water stress across species, but if the cost–benefit<br />
perspective on leaf longevity (Chabot and Hicks 1982; Kikuzawa 1991) is valid,<br />
then it must apply within species.<br />
1<br />
O<br />
D<br />
Rhododendron<br />
maximum<br />
(1983)<br />
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9<br />
YEARS<br />
E<br />
10
Aridity and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
There is good intraspecific evidence for prolonged leaf longevity in response<br />
to aridity. For example, Encelia farinosa is a drought-tolerant shrub distributed<br />
along a precipitation gradient in Arizona and California. Its leaves become more<br />
tomentose under drier conditions, decreasing rates <strong>of</strong> transpiration but also<br />
increasing the cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction as well as reducing photosynthetic capacity.<br />
Hence, the payback period on leaf construction is extended and leaves survive<br />
longer in the drier regions (Sandquist and Ehleringer 1998). Similar results were<br />
found when the effect <strong>of</strong> drought on leaf longevity was investigated experimentally<br />
in Cryptantha flava, a desert shrub in Utah (Casper et al. 2001). <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
longevity was compared between plants receiving half versus all natural precipitation.<br />
Stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rates were lower in the plants<br />
receiving less precipitation, and as expected leaf longevity became longer:<br />
leaves present at the initial census persisted 49.2 days in the dry plot versus 22.6<br />
days in the control (Fig. 8.3). Similar trends occur in the dioecious shrub<br />
Pistacia lentiscus in southern Spain where precipitation ranges from 350 to<br />
1,000 mm year −1 in a Mediterranean climate regime (Jonasson et al. 1997). <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
longevity in male plants <strong>of</strong> P. lentiscus was shorter under more-arid conditions;<br />
the relationship in female plants was the same, but it was not statistically significant<br />
because <strong>of</strong> confounding effects from variation in fruit production (Jonasson<br />
et al. 1997). A severe drought extended leaf longevity in five species <strong>of</strong> deciduous<br />
trees in a Swiss forest, mostly because <strong>of</strong> later leaffall (Leuzinger et al.<br />
2005). In general, we can expect drought to extend leaf longevity within species<br />
but not always among species.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0 140 145<br />
Julian date<br />
Drought<br />
Control<br />
150 155 160 165 170 175<br />
Fig. 8.3 Effect <strong>of</strong> drought treatment on leaf longevity in the desert plant Cryptantha flava. <strong>Leaf</strong><br />
longevity was prolonged by drought. (From Casper et al. 2001)<br />
91
92 8 Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Nutrients and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
The decrease in leaf longevity with higher levels <strong>of</strong> foliar nitrogen content is a<br />
well-established interspecific relationship (Field and Mooney 1986; Field<br />
1991; Reich et al. 1991, 1992, 1994; Wright et al. 2004; Poorter and Bongers<br />
2006), but this negative relationship may or may not apply within species or<br />
among species at a site. Observational and experimental evidence for the effect<br />
<strong>of</strong> fertility on leaf longevity in general shows that for a given species leaf longevity<br />
will be shorter at more fertile sites. For example, leaf longevities <strong>of</strong><br />
Picea abies, P. jezoensis, and P. glehnii were longer on nutrient-poor serpentine<br />
soil compared to more fertile brown forest soil (Kayama et al. 2002).<br />
Fertilization <strong>of</strong> the prostrate tundra evergreen shrub Ledum palustre var. decumbens<br />
increased leaf turnover (Shaver 1981). Fertilization <strong>of</strong> Pseudotsuga menziesii<br />
var. glauca and Abies grandis, coniferous trees <strong>of</strong> the Pacific Northwest<br />
in North America, reduced leaf longevity by about one-fourth (Balster and<br />
Marshall 2000). In the Hawaiian tree Metrosideros polymorpha, leaf longevity<br />
varies between 2 and 5 years and is longer on more infertile sites; fertilization<br />
decreases longevity on fertile sites but not at the infertile sites where longevity<br />
is already long (Herbert and Fownes 1999; Cordell et al. 2001). In this tree species<br />
longevity decreased as leaf nitrogen content increased across sites (Herbert<br />
and Fownes 1999). In Larrea tridentata, an evergreen desert shrub, fertilization<br />
shortened leaf longevity, and the effect was enhanced by irrigation (Lajtha and<br />
Whitford 1989; Fig. 8.4). A 100-fold increase in nutrient availability decreased<br />
leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> the perennial floating-leaved aquatic plant, Hydrocharis<br />
morus-ranae var. asiatica, from 15–20 to 10–15 days (Tsuchiya 1989); lower<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> fertilization did not significantly alter leaf longevity (Tsuchiya 1989;<br />
Tsuchiya and Iwakuma 1993).<br />
Box 8.2 Density Dependence<br />
A density dependence in population regulation occurs whenever differences<br />
in either birth rate or death rate result in lowering <strong>of</strong> the population<br />
growth rate as the density <strong>of</strong> the population increases. If the density dependence<br />
is driven by changes in the death rate <strong>of</strong> individuals, we speak <strong>of</strong><br />
density-dependent mortality factors. In general a population is considered<br />
to be regulated at some equilibrium density by density-dependent factors<br />
such as the reduction <strong>of</strong> birth rate resulting from short supply <strong>of</strong> food,<br />
increase in death rate from overcrowding, and similar regulatory responses.<br />
Without some sort <strong>of</strong> density-dependent factors, population numbers could<br />
not be regulated.
Nutrients and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Box 8.3 Growth Rate Hypothesis<br />
Short, cool growing seasons (f) are a disadvantage for plant growth. To overcome<br />
and compensate for this disadvantage, the growth rate hypothesis<br />
(GRH) predicts that natural selection will favor rapid growth in response to<br />
increases in tissue nutrient concentration, especially phosphorus (P) because<br />
<strong>of</strong> its critical role in the P-rich ribosomes required for protein synthesis (Elser<br />
et al. 2000; Kerkh<strong>of</strong>f et al. 2005).<br />
% Leaves Remaining<br />
100<br />
75<br />
50<br />
25<br />
100<br />
75<br />
50<br />
25<br />
100<br />
75<br />
50<br />
25<br />
unfertilized<br />
fertilized<br />
Unwatered<br />
6 mm/wk<br />
25 mm/mo<br />
M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O<br />
Fig. 8.4 Joint effects <strong>of</strong> fertilization and irrigation on desert evergreen plants. Open symbols,<br />
leaves emerging in spring; closed symbols, leaves emerging in autumn; wk weeks, mo months.<br />
(From Lajtha and Whitford 1989)<br />
93
94 8 Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Effects <strong>of</strong> Environmental Stress on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
The form and function <strong>of</strong> each species comprise an evolved functional design suited<br />
to a particular range <strong>of</strong> environmental conditions. In an environment within the<br />
limits <strong>of</strong> their evolved capacity, plant species generally can respond effectively to<br />
resource limitations, including through adjustments in leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> the category<br />
discussed earlier in this chapter. Environmental stress arises when conditions<br />
fall near or beyond the limits <strong>of</strong> a functional design, near the point where function<br />
can no longer be sustained. In terms <strong>of</strong> foliar function and questions <strong>of</strong> impact on<br />
leaf longevity, a stress might arise from any biotic or abiotic factor that incapacitates<br />
a leaf to the point where its production potential no longer will yield a net<br />
return on the resources invested in constructing and maintaining the leaf. In this<br />
context, expectations rooted in a cost–benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> foliar function <strong>of</strong>ten must<br />
be founded on analysis <strong>of</strong> carbon investments and gain at the whole-plant level, not<br />
just single leaves in isolation. We illustrate this perspective with a brief discussion<br />
<strong>of</strong> some important biotic and abiotic stressors.<br />
Biotic Stressors: Herbivory and Disease<br />
An herbivorous caterpillar, Actias selene gnoma<br />
The original framework <strong>of</strong> Chabot and Hicks (1982) for cost–benefit analyses <strong>of</strong><br />
foliar function included a term for leaf loss caused by herbivory or disease, but
Biotic Stressors: Herbivory and Disease<br />
incorporating these effects into a comprehensive model <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity is not<br />
straightforward. First, there are two elements to foliar defense against herbivores<br />
and disease: constitutive and induced defenses (Karban and Baldwin 1997).<br />
Chabot and Hicks (1982), as well as subsequent cost–benefit models for leaf<br />
longevity in this vein (Kikuzawa 1991, 1995a,b; Kikuzawa and Ackerly 1999),<br />
have assessed a constitutive cost at the time <strong>of</strong> leaf construction, which cannot<br />
account for the cost <strong>of</strong> induced defensive responses to herbivore or pathogen<br />
attack. Second, the efficacy <strong>of</strong> an induced plant response is highly contingent<br />
on the ecology <strong>of</strong> the interaction between plant and attacker. For example, early<br />
abscission <strong>of</strong> gall-infested leaves can act as the density-dependent mortality factor<br />
for the gall-forming insects (Sunose and Yukawa 1979; Yukawa and Tsuda<br />
1986), thus reducing the risk <strong>of</strong> attack for uninfested or future leaves. This sort<br />
<strong>of</strong> selective shortening <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity is illustrated by the response <strong>of</strong> Populus<br />
attacked by the gall-forming aphid (Pemphigus betae); nearly 90% <strong>of</strong> freshly<br />
fallen green leaves were gall infested, compared to less than 10% <strong>of</strong> the leaves<br />
still attached to the trees (Williams and Whitham 1986). On the other hand,<br />
infection <strong>of</strong> Populus by a rust fungus such as Melampsora medusae can result<br />
in anything from complete to only slight leaf loss (Newcombe and Chastagner<br />
1993). Third, accounting the marginal value <strong>of</strong> a leaf at the time <strong>of</strong> attack<br />
requires assessing the return on initial investments to that point in time, the<br />
potential future return from the leaf in light <strong>of</strong> the cost and potential efficacy <strong>of</strong><br />
any induced defenses, and integrating these costs and benefits at the wholeplant<br />
level. An effective model for the response <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity to herbivore<br />
or pathogen attack thus must scale up from the leaf to whole-plant level to<br />
address the underlying question <strong>of</strong> tolerance versus defense (Nunez-Farfan<br />
et al. 2007) as strategies for plant response to herbivory and disease.<br />
Box 8.4 Mangroves<br />
Many tree species in five different plant families have evolved the capacity to<br />
grow in intertidal swamps along the ocean shoreline in tropical and subtropical<br />
regions. These trees, which are commonly referred to as mangroves, have<br />
converged to distinctive morphological and physiological adaptations to survive<br />
the stress associated with the twice-daily tidal alternation <strong>of</strong> saltwater<br />
versus freshwater around their roots. Mangroves are usually evergreen<br />
because their leaves are important for maintaining the metabolic and physical<br />
processes involved in salt exclusion and maintenance <strong>of</strong> stable tissue water<br />
potentials. Although mangroves have the evergreen leaf habit, the longevities<br />
<strong>of</strong> their individual leaves in fact are not very long, usually only 6–12 months<br />
(Gill and Tomlinson 1971), or sometimes up to 24 months (Tomlinson<br />
1986).<br />
95
96 8 Exogenous Influences on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Abiotic Stressors: Ozone and Natural Oxidants<br />
Pollutants arising from anthropogenic sources fall outside the realm <strong>of</strong> specific<br />
adaptive responses but nonetheless can elicit generalized stress response mechanisms<br />
that have an evolutionary basis. Ozone provides a good example <strong>of</strong> this sort<br />
<strong>of</strong> preadaptation. Foliar responses to tropospheric ozone from anthropogenic<br />
sources are essentially the same as responses to UV radiation, drought, high temperatures,<br />
or other natural sources <strong>of</strong> oxidative stress (Bussotti 2008). In general,<br />
longer-lived leaves are more resistant to all oxidative stress whether natural or<br />
anthropogenic in origin. In terms <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity, the impact <strong>of</strong> ozone-induced<br />
oxidative stress, or probably most other anthropogenic pollutants as well, depends<br />
on a dose–response relationship. At lower doses in which tissue-level repair mechanisms<br />
confer sufficient resilience to maintain photosynthetic functions, leaf longevity<br />
should be extended to recover the initial leaf construction costs as well as the<br />
subsequent repair costs associated with the stress. At some higher dose, however,<br />
we can expect the leaf to be abandoned and recovery <strong>of</strong> investments shifted to<br />
shorter-lived leaves with higher production potential. Bussotti (2008) lends support<br />
to these suppositions, which invite further study.<br />
Abiotic Stressors: Salinity<br />
The impact <strong>of</strong> salinity on leaf longevity has this same sort <strong>of</strong> dose–response dependency,<br />
at least so long as the species have at least some degree <strong>of</strong> salinity tolerance<br />
and do not simply die on exposure to saline conditions. Mangroves, a plant functional<br />
group tolerant <strong>of</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> salinity in their tidewater habitats that would be<br />
fatal for most plants, illustrate the interspecific variation and dose–response dependence<br />
in salinity effects on leaf longevity. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevities increase from only 0.36<br />
years for Sonneratia alba and 0.65 years for Avicennia alba at the seaside on up to<br />
2.66 years for Xylocarpus granatum at the upper edge <strong>of</strong> a mangrove swamp in<br />
Thailand (Imai et al. 2009). The leaf half-life <strong>of</strong> Avicennia germinans is 160 days<br />
in a Venezuelan mangrove swamp (Suarez 2003), but under experimental conditions<br />
in the absence <strong>of</strong> salt the half-life rises to 425 days, dropping to 195 days at<br />
170 mol m −3 NaCl and to 75 days at 940 mol m −3 NaCl (Suarez and Medina 2005).<br />
Although Avicennia tolerates salt, it is clear that increasing salinity decreases leaf<br />
longevity. From a simplistic cost–benefit analysis, one might expect instead that<br />
increasing salinity would impair photosynthetic activity and extend leaf longevity<br />
to pay back the costs <strong>of</strong> leaf construction. This apparent contradiction is resolved<br />
at the whole-plant level because the leaves <strong>of</strong> Avicennia function not only in photosynthesis<br />
but also in salt secretion (Suarez 2003; Suarez and Medina 2005).<br />
Because the metabolic costs <strong>of</strong> salt excretion increase with leaf age and salinity,<br />
there is a point at which carbon gains at the whole-plant level are better served by<br />
shortening leaf longevity to take full advantage <strong>of</strong> the high foliar photosynthetic
Abiotic Stressors: Flooding<br />
potential <strong>of</strong> young leaves before they are <strong>of</strong>fset by increasing costs associated with<br />
salt excretion. In this instance, the shift from leaf to whole-plant level in resolving<br />
the stress arises not in limits to tissue repair but in competing foliar functions.<br />
Abiotic Stressors: Flooding<br />
Flooding can impair leaf function in terrestrial plants through two effects: submersion,<br />
which cuts <strong>of</strong>f access to atmospheric CO 2 , and anaerobic conditions in the root<br />
zone that impair root function and reduce the transpirational stream to emergent<br />
leaves (Mommer et al. 2006; Parolin 2009). Depending on their degree <strong>of</strong> flood<br />
tolerance, species differ in the impact <strong>of</strong> flooding on leaf longevity (Terazawa and<br />
Kikuzawa 1994). Alnus japonica, a flood-tolerant riparian species, responds to<br />
flooding by developing adventitious roots near the surface and lenticels on the stem<br />
for air exchange; leaf longevity is prolonged under relatively short or shallow flooding<br />
conditions but shortened by deeper or long flooding. The response <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity<br />
is reversed in the upland, flood-intolerant Betula platyphylla var. japonica<br />
(Terazawa and Kikuzawa 1994). Similarly, in herbaceous species from wetlands,<br />
submergence in water through which light can penetrate prolongs leaf longevity,<br />
but in species from terrestrial habitats leaf longevity is shortened by submergence<br />
(Mommer et al. 2006). Most trees species submerged by the muddy floodwaters <strong>of</strong><br />
the Amazon River immediately lose all their leaves, but others retain leaves<br />
throughout floods that can persist up to 9 months <strong>of</strong> the year; in some cases the<br />
retained leaves may actually carry on photosynthesis during submergence and in<br />
others only resume aerial photosynthesis as the flood recedes (Parolin 2009). For<br />
most <strong>of</strong> these Amazonian trees, flooding is an unfavorable period for photosynthesis,<br />
more akin to winter or prolonged drought than to an abiotic stress in which a<br />
dose–response relationship determines shifts in leaf longevity.<br />
97
Chapter 9<br />
Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
and Foliar Habit<br />
Tropical montane forest on Mt. Kinabalu, Borneo<br />
There is, apparently, no general restriction on variation in leaf longevity per se<br />
along local and regional spatial gradients. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity is only part <strong>of</strong> a suite <strong>of</strong><br />
foliar traits that act in concert to ensure effective photosynthetic function in a given<br />
environmental regime (Wright et al. 2004; Shipley et al. 2006). Coordinated quantitative<br />
variation among the set <strong>of</strong> foliar traits can underpin equivalently effective<br />
photosynthetic function despite considerable variation in leaf longevity (Marks and<br />
Lechowicz 2006). As a consequence, leaf longevity typically varies substantially<br />
among species even in a single locality, a point made forcefully in earlier chapters<br />
but worth reinforcing here with another example. A careful study <strong>of</strong> 100 species<br />
representing four growth forms in the understory <strong>of</strong> a tropical montane forest<br />
(Fig. 9.1) shows the high variability in leaf survivorship curves among co-occurring<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_9, © Springer 2011<br />
99
100 9 Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>and Foliar Habit<br />
Probability <strong>of</strong> leaf survival<br />
a<br />
1.0<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.2<br />
0.0<br />
Trees<br />
c<br />
1.0<br />
Climbers<br />
d<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.2<br />
species; survivorship, in turn, is consistently correlated with elements in the leaf<br />
economic spectrum (Wright et al. 2004) as well as with aspects <strong>of</strong> foliar defense<br />
such as condensed tannin content and leaf toughness (Shiodera et al. 2008). Ideally,<br />
we might look for geographic pattern in the mean values <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity but the<br />
comprehensive, community-based samples required to do so are too scarce. We turn<br />
instead to the biogeography <strong>of</strong> foliar habit, which is rooted in leaf demography and<br />
commands not only the long-standing interest <strong>of</strong> plant geographers but also the<br />
attention <strong>of</strong> contemporary climate modelers.<br />
Biogeography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit<br />
b Herbs<br />
Goniothalamus macrophyllus Diplazium cordifolium<br />
Cyathea contaminans Alocasia macrorrhiza<br />
Psychotria sp.<br />
Piper arcuatum<br />
Epiphytes<br />
Months after leaf flushing<br />
Asplenium cuneatum<br />
Elaphoglossum sp.<br />
0.0<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30<br />
Fig. 9.1 <strong>Leaf</strong> survivorship for 100 understory species co-occurring in a tropical montane forest<br />
in Indonesia. Note that by exception the Alocasia plants that were censused grew along a riverside<br />
opening less shaded than the other species. (a) Woody plants. (b) Herbaceous plants. (c) Climbing<br />
plants and (d) Epipytic plants (From Shiodera et al. 2008)<br />
As a prelude to this discussion, we should note that the geography <strong>of</strong> ecosystems<br />
dominated by evergreen versus deciduous species has not been stable throughout<br />
Earth’s history. There are long-term influences on the patterns we see today that<br />
are set by both the evolution <strong>of</strong> the global environment and the phylogenetic<br />
history <strong>of</strong> contemporary plants. Both long-term changes in the global environment<br />
and the evolutionary diversification <strong>of</strong> the global flora have led to a temporally<br />
shifting mosaic in global land cover over Earth’s history. Although there
Contemporary Distribution <strong>of</strong> Deciduous and Evergreen Habits<br />
have long been evergreen broadleaf forests in tropical regions, the extensive<br />
needle-leaved boreal forests that influenced the perspectives <strong>of</strong> nineteenth-century<br />
phytogeographers did not exist until recently (Taggart and Cross 2009). During<br />
most <strong>of</strong> the more than 400 million years since terrestrial plants first evolved in<br />
the Silurian, the planet has been in a “greenhouse” mode characterized by<br />
relatively warm climates worldwide that were only occasionally interrupted by<br />
episodes <strong>of</strong> cooling and glaciation (Tabor and Poulsen 2008; DiMichele et al.<br />
2009). During this time the deciduous habit arose, most likely as an adaptation to<br />
seasonally dark and fire-prone polar environments (Brentnall et al. 2005; Royer<br />
et al. 2003, 2005). By the Eocene, when the flora had close affinity with that <strong>of</strong><br />
today, the distribution <strong>of</strong> evergreen and deciduous vegetation differed substantially<br />
from the present day. Broadleaf evergreen forests extended from equatorial<br />
regions to latitudes as high as 60°, and deciduous conifer forests were found in<br />
polar regions (Brentnall et al. 2005; Utescher and Mosbrugger 2007). This long<br />
period <strong>of</strong> “greenhouse” conditions is in contrast to the “icehouse” conditions that<br />
began and have persisted since the transition from the Eocene to Oligocene about<br />
34 million years ago (MYA) when the planet became cooler and more subject to<br />
cyclic glaciation than it had been during the late Paleozoic and earlier Cenozoic<br />
(Coxall and Pearson 2007; Zachos et al. 2001). Although the contemporary phytogeography<br />
<strong>of</strong> vegetation types (Melillo et al. 1993) has arisen in these “icehouse”<br />
conditions, on uniformitarian principles a well-grounded theory <strong>of</strong> foliar<br />
habit should predict both contemporary and paleo-distributions <strong>of</strong> evergreen and<br />
deciduous habits.<br />
Contemporary Distribution <strong>of</strong> Deciduous<br />
and Evergreen Habits<br />
Chabot and Hicks (1982) posed the question: What can account for the bimodal<br />
distribution <strong>of</strong> evergreen forests along latitudinal gradients (Fig. 9.2), ecosystems<br />
dominated by broadleaf evergreen species at low latitudes and needle-leaf evergreen<br />
species at high latitudes (Melillo et al. 1993)? This query may, in fact, not be<br />
the best question around which to develop a theory <strong>of</strong> foliar habit. The potential<br />
problem is that despite the conceptual frameworks imposed by those interested in<br />
classifying, modeling, and mapping the broad patterns <strong>of</strong> global vegetation, plant<br />
communities only rarely, if at all, are composed entirely <strong>of</strong> evergreen or deciduous<br />
species. The norm is co-occurrence <strong>of</strong> species with these contrasting foliar habits<br />
within and among plant growth forms and vegetation strata, albeit in varying<br />
proportions. For example, the low-growing woody species <strong>of</strong> the tundra are mostly<br />
evergreen, but there are also many deciduous species <strong>of</strong> Salix. Boreal forests are<br />
dominated by evergreen conifers, but deciduous species <strong>of</strong> Populus and Betula are<br />
frequent on successional sites, Salix species widespread, and Fraxinus, Alnus, and<br />
Ulmus not uncommon trees in rich, moist sites. There is no shortage <strong>of</strong> deciduous<br />
herbs and shrubs in the boreal forest understory. The transition from boreal forests<br />
101
102 9 Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>and Foliar Habit<br />
Fig. 9.2 Global distribution <strong>of</strong> evergreen trees. (From Woodward et al. 2004)<br />
south to temperate broad-leaved deciduous forests transits a “mixed-wood” zone<br />
with evergreen and deciduous trees in more or less equal proportions. South <strong>of</strong> the<br />
deciduous broad-leaved forests, broad-leaved forests <strong>of</strong> evergreen oaks predominate,<br />
and further south give way to evergreen as well as deciduous forests in the subtropics<br />
and tropics. Mesic tropical forests are basically evergreen, but in seasonally<br />
dry regions tropical deciduous forests predominate. These and many other examples<br />
spanning widely divergent spatial scales illustrate a pattern <strong>of</strong> evergreen predominance<br />
at both ends <strong>of</strong> the latitudinal gradient in contemporary vegetation that,<br />
although not inviolate, is common enough to demand general explanation. We<br />
clearly need a theory addressing the fundamental basis for spatiotemporal variation<br />
in foliar habit.<br />
Theory for the Geography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit<br />
Our premise is that a theoretical analysis <strong>of</strong> the geographic distribution <strong>of</strong> the evergreen<br />
and deciduous habits should be based on a theory <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity. Evergreen<br />
and deciduous habits are defined at the canopy level but set by the temporal<br />
dynamics <strong>of</strong> leaf turnover and leaf longevity. Previous theories with their intellectual<br />
heritage in the canopy-level perspectives <strong>of</strong> Monsi and Saeki (1953)<br />
have not really tried to predict conditions favoring evergreen versus deciduous species.<br />
Because this issue was an explicit motivation for the seminal review by<br />
Chabot and Hicks (1982), at least some <strong>of</strong> the existing theory for leaf longevity
Theory for the Geography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit<br />
(Kikuzawa 1991, 1995a,b, 1996) has <strong>of</strong>fered predictions about the factors determining<br />
foliar habit. The analysis by Kikuzawa (1991) recognizes the existence <strong>of</strong> sustained<br />
periods in the annual cycle that can be unfavorable for photosynthetic activity,<br />
and that hence would appear to compromise the raison d’etre for maintaining<br />
leaves in these unfavorable seasons. These unfavorable periods may be set, for<br />
example, by extreme cold, as in the winter <strong>of</strong> the temperate zone, or by droughts,<br />
as in the aseasonal tropics. To address the existence <strong>of</strong> the deciduous versus evergreen<br />
habits, Kikuzawa (1991, 1995a, 1996) adapted the basic theory shown by<br />
(4.3) and Fig. 4.2 to seasonal environments. Photosynthesis during the favorable<br />
period simply follows (4.3). If plants retain leaves during an unfavorable period, the<br />
leaves do not yield photosynthetic gains and in fact incur maintenance costs (respiration)<br />
during this period. Hence, (4.3) can be recast in the form:<br />
f 1+<br />
f t<br />
∫ ∫ ∫<br />
G= pt ()d t+ pt ()d t+ +<br />
pt ()dt−<br />
0 1 [] t<br />
1 2<br />
t<br />
⎧⎪ ⎫⎪<br />
⎨∫mt ()d t+ ∫ mt ()d t+ +<br />
∫ mt ()dt⎬−c<br />
⎪⎩ f 1 + f [] t + f ⎪⎭<br />
103<br />
(9.1)<br />
where f is the fractional length <strong>of</strong> the favorable period within a year and t is the<br />
Gaussian notation. This equation gives photosynthetic gain by subtracting maintenance<br />
costs <strong>of</strong> leaves during the unfavorable periods from photosynthetic gains<br />
during the favorable period. Note that the maintenance costs during favorable<br />
periods are already subtracted from gross photosynthetic gain; thus, p(t) is net<br />
gain, the outcome <strong>of</strong> this subtraction.<br />
What then is the optimal replacement timing <strong>of</strong> leaves for individual plants in a<br />
seasonal environment with a period unfavorable for photosynthetic production?<br />
Much as in the aseasonal situation, the solution is obtained by finding t that<br />
maximizes g = G/t, but now G is expressed by (9.1) and follows a zigzag curve<br />
through time, increasing during summer and decreasing during winter (Fig. 9.3).<br />
The optimal timing again obtains at the point when the line from the origin touches<br />
the zigzag curve. An analytical solution is not readily available, but numerical<br />
solutions can be found through appropriate simulations. If the optimal leaf longevity<br />
under certain conditions exceeds the length <strong>of</strong> the favorable period, then the plant<br />
is predicted to be evergreen. If the solution is for leaf longevity shorter than or equal<br />
to the length <strong>of</strong> the favorable period, then the plant should be deciduous.<br />
Simulations carried out for regions differing in length <strong>of</strong> favorable period yield predictions<br />
for patterns <strong>of</strong> occurrence in evergreen and deciduous plant species (Kikuzawa<br />
1991, 1995a, 1996). Where favorable period length (f) is equal to 1 year, all plants are<br />
expected to be evergreen, because plants can carry out photosynthesis throughout a year<br />
(Fig. 9.4). Even in such locations, however, there can be species whose leaf longevity<br />
is shorter than 1 year. The evergreen habit combined with leaf longevity less than the<br />
full favorable period suggests that a tree retains leaves throughout a year but with a high,<br />
asynchronous turnover in individual leaves. When the favorable period length becomes
104 9 Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>and Foliar Habit<br />
Fig. 9.3 Schematic representations to show photosynthetic production under favorable periods<br />
<strong>of</strong> different lengths. (a) Evergreen species have an advantage because <strong>of</strong> the low maintenance<br />
costs during a short unfavorable period. (b) Shedding leaves during the unfavorable period is<br />
advantageous in the longer favorable period. (c) Paying back construction costs within one short<br />
favorable period. Solid increasing line indicates net gain during favorable periods. Broken<br />
decreasing lines are maintenance costs during unfavorable periods. Broken increasing line from<br />
the origin touches the curve at the point where the marginal gain is maximum<br />
shorter than 1 year, the deciduous habit will appear. The percentages <strong>of</strong> deciduous<br />
species increase and evergreen species decrease with the shortening <strong>of</strong> favorable<br />
period. The percentage <strong>of</strong> evergreen species reached a minimum value at an intermediate<br />
length <strong>of</strong> f (at around f = 0.5). When the favorable period length becomes<br />
still shorter, the percentage <strong>of</strong> evergreen species increases again.<br />
Various observations are consistent with this sort <strong>of</strong> interplay between the length<br />
<strong>of</strong> the favorable period and the balance between evergreen and deciduous foliar<br />
habits. Some tree species, such as Mallotus japonicus and Alnus japonica, are<br />
deciduous in central Japan but are evergreen on Okinawa in southern Japan. Some<br />
evergreen trees in Singapore such as Trema orientalis, Ficus elastica, and Duabanga<br />
sonneratioides become deciduous north along the Malay Peninsula (Koriba<br />
1948a,b). Almost all the trees in a riparian forest in Costa Rica were evergreen<br />
compared to only about half in nearby upland forests (Frankie et al. 1974; Opler<br />
et al. 1980). Similarly, Condit et al. (2000) reported that the percentage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
deciduous tree species across the Isthmus <strong>of</strong> Panama increased from 14% on the<br />
Atlantic Ocean side (annual precipitation, 2,839 mm) to 28% on Barro Colorado<br />
Island (2,570 mm) and 41% on the Pacific Ocean side (2,060 mm). When the favorable<br />
period length becomes still shorter, the percentage <strong>of</strong> evergreen species<br />
increases again. Such shifts in the balance <strong>of</strong> deciduous and evergreen species can<br />
occur even in the restricted growing season <strong>of</strong> arctic regions. Of 18 plant species
Theory for the Geography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit<br />
Percentages <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Habit<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
1.0<br />
Fig. 9.4 Simulation <strong>of</strong> changes in the percentages <strong>of</strong> deciduous (open) and evergreen (shaded )<br />
species at different length <strong>of</strong> favorable period (year) within a year (f). Dotted bar indicates the<br />
evergreen habit but shorter leaf longevity than 1 year<br />
whose foliar habit is evergreen or wintergreen on King Christian Island at 77°50¢N,<br />
ten species were summergreen in Greenland at 72°50¢N. Similarly, seven evergreen<br />
species whose leaf longevity is longer than 2 years on King Christian Island were<br />
reported to be wintergreen with leaf longevity shorter than 2 years in Greenland<br />
(Bell and Bliss 1977).<br />
Because favorable period length <strong>of</strong>ten shortens from the Equator to higher<br />
latitudes, the trend on length <strong>of</strong> the favorable period shown in Fig. 9.5 might also<br />
be taken to reflect changes in percentages <strong>of</strong> deciduous and evergreen habits from<br />
the Equator to the poles. This possibility is appealing because the bimodal distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> evergreenness on the latitudinal gradient has long puzzled ecologists (Chabot<br />
and Hicks 1982), but is this a fair interpretation <strong>of</strong> the simulations? Taking winter<br />
cold as an example <strong>of</strong> a constraint on photosynthetic production, there is some<br />
intuitive basis for interpreting the simulations in this way (cf. Fig. 9.3). When the<br />
unfavorable period is short, it can be advantageous to use overwintered leaves in<br />
the next spring by paying maintenance costs in winter rather than shedding old<br />
leaves at the end <strong>of</strong> summer and producing new leaves in spring (see Fig. 9.3a).<br />
When winter becomes longer, the cumulative maintenance costs <strong>of</strong> maintaining<br />
foliage overwinter increases, so that shedding leaves before the onset <strong>of</strong> the<br />
unfavorable period and producing new leaves with high photosynthetic capacity in<br />
the next season becomes advantageous (see Fig. 9.3b). When the unfavorable<br />
period length becomes still longer, it may be difficult for the leaves to pay back<br />
0.6<br />
Length <strong>of</strong> Favorable Period (f)<br />
(year)<br />
Latitude<br />
0.2<br />
105
106 9 Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>and Foliar Habit<br />
Fig. 9.5 Relationships between favorable period length and leaf longevity in three alpine plant<br />
species: deciduous Sieversia pentapetala (a), evergreen Phyllodoce aleutica (b), and evergreen<br />
Rhododendron aureum (c). (From Kikuzawa and Kudo 1995)<br />
their construction costs within the short favorable period, so extended leaf longevity<br />
leads to an evergreen habit (see Fig. 9.3c). This rationale is supported by the<br />
contrasting trends in the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> evergreen versus deciduous species<br />
reported by Wright et al. (2005a) along global temperature gradients associated<br />
with length <strong>of</strong> the growing season. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> evergreen species decreased<br />
with mean annual temperature whereas that <strong>of</strong> deciduous species increased. In<br />
summary, deciduous plants are unable to retain their leaves over an unfavorable<br />
period but do prolong leaf longevity when the favorable period lengthens.<br />
Conversely, evergreen species have to prolong leaf longevity when the unfavorable<br />
period lengthens to pay back the construction and maintenance costs <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
unproductive during the unfavorable period. Although these patterns are in accord<br />
with intuitive arguments provided by Kikuzawa (1991, 1995a, 1996) to account for<br />
the bimodal distribution <strong>of</strong> evergreen habit on latitude, the development <strong>of</strong> relevant<br />
analytical theory is desirable.<br />
In principle, these arguments should apply not only to interspecific behavior on<br />
latitudinal gradients but also to variation in leaf longevity for species at local spatial<br />
scales. We can illustrate and test the ideas using situations such as topographic<br />
variation in the timing <strong>of</strong> spring snowmelt caused by differences in winter snow<br />
depth on Mount Daisetsu in northern Japan. Kudo and Kikuzawa (Kudo 1992, 1996;
Theory for the Geography <strong>of</strong> Foliar Habit<br />
Box 9.1 Ecosystem<br />
The concept <strong>of</strong> ecosystems emerged early in the twentieth century as ecologists<br />
began to grapple with the complex interactions defining the relationships<br />
between the biota and the abiotic environment. The concept is appealing in its<br />
generality, applying equally well from a pond to an ocean, or from a woodlot<br />
to a forest biome, or for that matter to the planet as a whole. At the heart <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ecosystem concept is the recognition that flows <strong>of</strong> energy and materials<br />
through the system sustain the interactions among its biotic and abiotic<br />
components. Ultimately all ecosystems depend either on the thermal energy<br />
and material flows associated with deep-sea vents or, most commonly, on the<br />
solar energy that is captured by photosynthetic organisms such as plants and<br />
phytoplankton – the primary producers. Other organisms in ecosystems<br />
function as consumers <strong>of</strong> primary producers or decomposers breaking down<br />
organic matter. In contrast to the emphasis <strong>of</strong> evolutionary biology on the<br />
diversity and adaptation <strong>of</strong> organisms, ecosystem science has focused more<br />
on the overall structure and nature <strong>of</strong> the flows <strong>of</strong> materials and energy through<br />
the system than on the particular organisms in the system. A contemporary<br />
challenge in ecosystem science is to understand the relationship between<br />
biodiversity and ecosystem function.<br />
Kikuzawa and Kudo 1995) studied two evergreen species and a deciduous species<br />
associated with these snowbed habitats in which snowmelt occurred from early<br />
June through early August (see Fig. 9.5). In both evergreen species, leaf longevity<br />
declined with a longer favorable period, whereas in the deciduous species leaf longevity<br />
increased with the length <strong>of</strong> the favorable period. <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
deciduous species is restricted by the length <strong>of</strong> the favorable period; thus, leaf longevity<br />
necessarily is reduced in shorter favorable periods. In contrast, evergreen<br />
species can prolong leaf longevity beyond winter, thus compensating for the<br />
decrease in photosynthesis resulting from a shortened favorable period by<br />
prolonging leaf longevity and exploiting subsequent snow-free periods. By<br />
changing favorable period length in Kikuzawa’s (1991) model with other parameters<br />
held constant, Kikuzawa and Kudo (1995) simulated this pattern <strong>of</strong> decreasing<br />
versus increasing leaf longevity in evergreen and deciduous species, respectively,<br />
with a longer snow-free period (Fig. 9.5). Because leaf longevity is only one<br />
element in the suite <strong>of</strong> foliar traits affecting production potential, this snowbed<br />
community also affords an example <strong>of</strong> how the deciduous species adjust to ensure<br />
payback on leaf construction costs when the favorable period is short. Unable to<br />
extend their leaf longevity, plants growing in places subject to shorter snow-free<br />
periods instead increased their photosynthetic rates by increasing investment for<br />
photosynthetic machinery and decreasing costs such as defense. In three deciduous<br />
species in this snowbed habitat, leaf mass per area (LMA) decreased and foliar<br />
107
108 9 Biogeography <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>and Foliar Habit<br />
nitrogen increased as the favorable period length shortened across the sampled<br />
microhabitats (Kudo 1996). Consistent with Kikuzawa’s cost–benefit analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
foliar carbon economy (Kikuzawa 1991, 1995a,b, 1996), there clearly is interplay<br />
between leaf longevity and foliar habit that should figure in analyses <strong>of</strong> the<br />
geography <strong>of</strong> foliar habit as well.<br />
Modeling Foliar Habit in Relationship to Climate<br />
The greatest current concern in predicting the distribution <strong>of</strong> foliar habit at a global<br />
scale is in models for shifts in vegetation in response to climate change. These<br />
dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) draw on the distinction between evergreen<br />
and deciduous foliar habit to characterize future vegetation zones but are cast<br />
at the scale <strong>of</strong> global zonation in broadly defined plant functional types (Woodward<br />
et al. 2004; Sitch et al. 2008). The scale and the definition <strong>of</strong> DGVMs unfortunately<br />
do not allow detailed attention to the relationships between leaf longevity and foliar<br />
habit. One place where climate models <strong>of</strong> foliar habit, however, have explicitly<br />
considered the role <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity is in analyses <strong>of</strong> the possible origin <strong>of</strong> the<br />
deciduous habit in polar forests during warmer periods in earth history (Brentnall<br />
et al. 2005). In an adaptation <strong>of</strong> the University <strong>of</strong> Sheffield’s conifer forest growth<br />
model (Osborne and Beerling 2002), Brentnall and his colleagues (2005) use leaf<br />
longevity as a key driver in analyses <strong>of</strong> variation in foliar habit along simulated<br />
mid-Cretaceous climate gradients. Using wood from extant conifers, they calibrate<br />
their model with a method relating the fine structure <strong>of</strong> wood anatomy to leaf longevity<br />
(Falcon-Lang 2000a,b; Falcon-Lang and Cantrill 2001) and then test their<br />
predictions against a broad sampling <strong>of</strong> fossil wood deposits. Their analyses demonstrate<br />
the advantage <strong>of</strong> the deciduous habit in high-latitude conifers during the<br />
mid-Cretaceous when the earth was warmer and polar regions were forested<br />
(Fig. 9.6), a finding substantiated by experimental studies <strong>of</strong> extant conifers with<br />
evergreen versus deciduous habits (Royer et al. 2005).<br />
Fig. 9.6 Fractional cover <strong>of</strong><br />
deciduous conifers (open<br />
circles) versus evergreen<br />
conifers (closed circles) as a<br />
function <strong>of</strong> latitude in simulations<br />
that consider the role<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf longevity in affecting<br />
survival, reproduction, and<br />
competitive ability during the<br />
mid-Cretaceous. (From<br />
Brentnall et al. 2005)<br />
Fractional cover<br />
0.5<br />
0.4<br />
0<br />
0.2<br />
0.1<br />
0<br />
60<br />
70 80 90<br />
Latitude
Chapter 10<br />
Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
A streamside forest in fall<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6_10, © Springer 2011<br />
109
110 10 Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
As an integral part <strong>of</strong> the adaptive strategy for productivity at the level <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
plants, leaf longevity should scale up to impact flows <strong>of</strong> energy and materials at the<br />
ecosystem level. Consequently, leaf longevity and foliar habit consistently appear<br />
in enumerations <strong>of</strong> traits relevant to ecosystem function (Weiher et al. 1999;<br />
Lavorel and Garnier 2002; Cornelissen et al. 2003; Kleyer et al. 2008). The past<br />
decade has seen a flood <strong>of</strong> papers discussing linkages between various traits and<br />
ecosystem function: useful entry points to this literature include Lavorel and Garnier<br />
(2002), Díaz et al. (2004), Wright et al. (2005b), Quetier et al. (2007), and Suding<br />
and Goldstein (2008). Although leaf longevity and its foliar correlates clearly influence<br />
ecosystem processes (Thomas and Sadras 2001; Wright et al. 2005b; Cornwell et al.<br />
2008), scaling up the effects <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity at the level <strong>of</strong> individual plants or<br />
species to the aggregate influence <strong>of</strong> species assembled in diverse communities<br />
across the landscape is not at all straightforward (Suding et al. 2008). Zhang and<br />
colleagues (Zhang et al. 2009) provide perhaps the best example <strong>of</strong> what is possible<br />
if one is willing to invest the effort. They followed leaf longevity on individual<br />
species in ten evergreen forests in eastern China for 5 years, calculating frequencyweighted<br />
mean leaf longevity for each forest, which was negatively correlated<br />
with mean annual temperature and positively correlated with mean annual precipitation.<br />
Very few ecosystem studies focus to this degree on leaf longevity per se at the<br />
level <strong>of</strong> individual species, or for that matter on any other species-specific traits.<br />
Some models <strong>of</strong> forest productivity incorporate an impressive amount <strong>of</strong> detail on<br />
individual species at the population level in the forest community (cf. Medvigy et al.<br />
2009), but the focus typically remains on the forest as a whole, not the detailed<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> individual trees and species that in aggregate decide the functional<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> the forest. It clearly is no easy task to assess how leaf longevity<br />
and associated traits at the species level scale up to affect ecosystem function.<br />
In any case, our goal in this closing chapter is not so much to discuss the influence<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf longevity and foliar habit on ecosystem function, but rather the obverse – to<br />
highlight work in ecosystem ecology that may help improve theory for leaf longevity.<br />
Through perspectives drawn from ecosystem function, we basically turn the discussion<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf longevity back to the Chabot and Hicks’ (1982) seminal review, with a<br />
focus on better accounting the costs <strong>of</strong> foliar construction and defense in predicting<br />
variation in leaf longevity. The relatively limited treatment <strong>of</strong> these factors in the<br />
initial cost–benefit models for leaf longevity (Kikuzawa 1991, 1995a,b, 1996)<br />
leaves room for improvement in our understanding <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity as a key factor<br />
in foliar function.<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> Turnover and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> in the Ecosystem<br />
The most direct connection <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity to ecosystem function is through leaf<br />
turnover because this turnover rate essentially defines a storage term for materials<br />
in the system as well as an indication <strong>of</strong> system productivity. Not surprisingly,<br />
there is a positive correlation between leaf longevity and mean retention time <strong>of</strong>
Nutrient Resorption and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
MRTB (number <strong>of</strong> growth seasons)<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
0<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> life span (number <strong>of</strong> growth seasons)<br />
Fig. 10.1 Relationship between leaf longevity and mean retention time <strong>of</strong> biomass (MRTB) in<br />
various ecosystems. (From Mediavilla and Escudero 2003b)<br />
biomass in canopies (Fig. 10.1). The ratio <strong>of</strong> leaf biomass and leaf litter production<br />
gives an estimate <strong>of</strong> mean retention time <strong>of</strong> leaves in the canopy, and these<br />
data in turn can be used to estimate leaf longevity (cf. Chap. 3). More importantly,<br />
the voluminous data gathered by ecosystem ecologists on the quality <strong>of</strong> fallen<br />
foliage has considerable bearing on theory for leaf longevity. Foliar nitrogen in<br />
particular is not only an important determinant <strong>of</strong> decomposition and nutrient<br />
cycling at the ecosystem level (Cornwell et al. 2008) but also a critical correlate<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf longevity and photosynthetic function (Wright et al. 2004). Construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaves requires investment <strong>of</strong> nitrogen that can only be acquired from the<br />
environment at some carbon cost to the plant (Givnish 2002), which contributes<br />
to the total carbon cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction that under current theory (Kikuzawa<br />
1991, 1995b, 1996) must be recouped over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> the leaf. If nitrogen and<br />
also phosphorus can be resorbed from senescing leaves and recycled into new<br />
leaves, then leaf construction costs may be less than if these foliar resources had<br />
to be acquired de novo in the environment.<br />
Nutrient Resorption and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Resorption <strong>of</strong> nutrients is a normal part <strong>of</strong> the leaf senescence process, but full<br />
recovery <strong>of</strong> critical and <strong>of</strong>ten relatively scarce nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus<br />
apparently is not possible. Killingbeck (2004) distinguishes potential<br />
resorption and realized resorption. Potential resorption considers all biochemically<br />
resorbable nutrients, those not so refractory as to be mobilizable only at exceedingly<br />
high metabolic costs. Potential resorption is considered a fixed value specific<br />
to each plant species and is thought to be phylogenetically dependent. In terms <strong>of</strong><br />
realized resorption, not all nutrients that potentially could be resorbed in fact will<br />
be retranslocated from senescing leaves, so realized resorption typically is less than<br />
111
112 10 Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
RESORPTION PROFICIENCY<br />
BASED ON NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION IN<br />
SENESCED LEAVES<br />
COMPLETE<br />
RESORPTION<br />
INCOMPLETE<br />
RESORPTION<br />
< 0.7% N<br />
I<br />
N<br />
T<br />
E<br />
R<br />
M<br />
E<br />
> 1.0% N<br />
< 0.05% P<br />
DECIDUOUS SPP.<br />
D<br />
IATE<br />
> 0.08% P<br />
DECIDUOUS SPP.<br />
< 0.04% P<br />
> 0.05% P<br />
EVERGREEN SPP. EVERGREEN SPP.<br />
Fig. 10.2 Resorption pr<strong>of</strong>iciency <strong>of</strong> nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Pr<strong>of</strong>iciency is the ratio <strong>of</strong><br />
mass <strong>of</strong> each nutrient to the leaf mass at leaffall. If the ratio is less than the values in the figure,<br />
resorption is complete; it is considered incomplete if the ratio is greater. SPP., species. (From<br />
Killingbeck 1996)<br />
potential resorption. Killingbeck (1996) also distinguished resorption pr<strong>of</strong>iciency<br />
from efficiency (Fig. 10.2). Efficiency is the percentage difference between nutrient<br />
concentration per unit area <strong>of</strong> a green leaf immediately before shedding to the initial<br />
concentration <strong>of</strong> the green leaf. Pr<strong>of</strong>iciency, simply the nutrient concentration<br />
<strong>of</strong> fallen leaves, is directly relevant to biogeochemical cycling (Parton et al. 2007),<br />
whereas efficiency is more directly relevant to foliar function and leaf longevity.<br />
The value <strong>of</strong> efficiency varies greatly among species, but the value <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>iciency<br />
does not vary so much (Killingbeck 1996, 2004).<br />
On average, a little less than half the nitrogen and a little more than half the<br />
phosphorus in a leaf is resorbed (Eckstein et al. 1999; Kobe et al. 2005; Yuan and<br />
Chen 2009), but in light <strong>of</strong> the huge range <strong>of</strong> interspecific variation in resorption<br />
efficiency and the lack <strong>of</strong> any correlation between nitrogen resorption efficiency<br />
(NRE) and phosphorus resorption efficiency (PRE) (Fig. 10.3), this fact provides<br />
little or no insight into alternative modes <strong>of</strong> foliar function. The apparent lack <strong>of</strong><br />
correlation between NRE and PRE is somewhat misleading, however, because in<br />
fact tropical species are more efficient in resorbing phosphorus and temperate and<br />
boreal species are more efficient in resorbing nitrogen, which would appear to<br />
reflect latitudinal differences in soil availability <strong>of</strong> nitrogen relative to phosphorus<br />
(Yuan and Chen 2009; Fig. 10.4). The NRE also is lower and PRE higher on average
Nutrient Resorption and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Phosphorus Resorption Efficiency, %<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100<br />
Nitrogen Resorption Efficiency, %<br />
Fig. 10.3 Resorption efficiencies for nitrogen (NRE, x-axis) and phosphorus (PRE, y-axis) collated<br />
by Yuan and Chen (2009) for a wide range <strong>of</strong> tree and shrub species representing all growth forms<br />
and regions<br />
Phosphorus Resorption Efficiency, %<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70<br />
Latitude<br />
Nitrogen Resorption Efficiency, %<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
113<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70<br />
Latitude<br />
Fig. 10.4 Latitudinal trends <strong>of</strong> nitrogen resorption efficiency (NRE) and phosphorus resorption<br />
efficiency (PRE) for tree and shrub species in Yuan and Chen (2009) for species that had both<br />
measures <strong>of</strong> efficiency. Although overall there is no correlation between NRE and PRE for a<br />
species, this is because mid-latitude similarities mask the inverse, negative relationships at high<br />
and low latitudes
114 10 Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Nitrogen Resorption Efficiency, %<br />
80.0<br />
70.0<br />
60.0<br />
50.0<br />
40.0<br />
30.0<br />
20.0<br />
10.0<br />
0.0<br />
1.0 10.0<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity, months<br />
100.0<br />
Phosphorus Resorption Efficiency,<br />
%<br />
in evergreen compared to deciduous woody species (Yuan and Chen 2009), which<br />
presumably has more to do with the functional ecology <strong>of</strong> the two foliar habits than<br />
with site-dependent differences in nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Considering<br />
the carbon costs <strong>of</strong> acquiring the nitrogen and phosphorus to construct a leaf<br />
(Givnish 2002), we might expect that interspecific variation in NRE and PRE<br />
would be related to leaf longevity. In principle, recovery <strong>of</strong> nitrogen or phosphorus<br />
from senescing leaves might be less costly than acquiring these resources de novo<br />
from the soil, and hence could reduce the total carbon cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction.<br />
What little evidence there is, however, suggests there is no relationship between<br />
leaf longevity and either NRE or PRE (Fig. 10.5). Reich et al. (1992) did, however,<br />
report a significant negative relationship between the absolute amount <strong>of</strong> resorbed<br />
nitrogen and leaf longevity: the greater the amount <strong>of</strong> resorbed nitrogen, the shorter<br />
the leaf longevity. This result and the broad range <strong>of</strong> resorption efficiencies across<br />
species suggest that at least in some instances resorption may act to reduce the<br />
effective cost <strong>of</strong> leaf construction and thus might act to reduce leaf longevity.<br />
Resolving this possibility will require more studies <strong>of</strong> nitrogen and phosphorus<br />
availability at sites where NRE and PRE are determined.<br />
In this regard, it is noteworthy that longer-lived leaves generally have lower<br />
nitrogen concentration (Wright et al. 2004) and hence decompose more slowly<br />
(Parton et al. 2007). Because leaffall and decomposition comprise a critical pathway<br />
connecting the production and decomposing functions <strong>of</strong> ecosystems (Thomas<br />
and Sadras 2001), a positive feedback may generally exist between the availability<br />
<strong>of</strong> soil resources and the frequency-weighted mean leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> ecosystems.<br />
The quality and quantity <strong>of</strong> materials in fallen leaves will affect their fragmentation<br />
and decomposition (Grime et al. 1996). If the decomposition rate <strong>of</strong> the fallen<br />
leaves is rapid, organic matter can be decomposed to inorganic material quickly and<br />
absorbed by plant roots. Able to absorb abundant nutrients, plants could then grow<br />
vigorously, elongating shoots and shedding relatively short-lived leaves that are<br />
subject to more rapid decomposition. Conversely, longer-lived leaves are difficult<br />
80.0<br />
70.0<br />
60.0<br />
50.0<br />
40.0<br />
30.0<br />
20.0<br />
10.0<br />
0.0<br />
1.0 10.0 100.0<br />
leaf longevity, months<br />
Fig. 10.5 There is no apparent relationship between leaf longevity and either NRE or PRE, although<br />
the available data are sparse and not entirely consistent (Wright et al. 2004; Yuan and Chen 2009)
Photosynthetic Nitrogen Use Efficiency and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
for litter invertebrates to consume, decompose slowly, and accumulate as a thick<br />
litter layer that reduces nutrient availability and slows both plant growth rates and<br />
the nutrient turnover rate in the ecosystem (Eckstein et al. 1999; Kikuzawa 2004).<br />
In short, the turnover rate <strong>of</strong> leaves is correlated with the availability <strong>of</strong> nitrogen<br />
and phosphorus in an ecosystem, and there is a positive feedback between turnover<br />
and availability that can simplify modeling the carbon cost <strong>of</strong> nitrogen and phosphorus<br />
acquisition in an improved theory for leaf longevity.<br />
Photosynthetic Nitrogen Use Efficiency and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
There is a potential benefit in nitrogen resorption, but also a potential cost in lost<br />
photosynthetic capacity, so we can expect an environmentally dependent interplay<br />
among these foliar characteristics as the leaf ages. Although there are positive correlations<br />
among foliar nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and photosynthetic<br />
capacity (Wright et al. 2004), we also need to consider the degree to which NRE<br />
and leaf longevity are conditional on photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency (PNUE,<br />
the photosynthetic rate per unit nitrogen). Comparable arguments also may apply<br />
to phosphorus, but these are less well known because past work has emphasized<br />
species from regions where soil nitrogen availability limits productivity.<br />
Escudero and Mediavilla (2003) examined PNUE and nitrogen resorption in<br />
nine evergreen tree species from a Mediterranean climate. Although nitrogen was<br />
retranslocated immediately before leaffall, foliar nitrogen concentration was maintained<br />
rather constant throughout almost all the life <strong>of</strong> the leaf before an abrupt<br />
decline. But, because photosynthetic capacity decreased with leaf age, the PNUE<br />
also decreased linearly with time. The shorter the leaf longevity, the greater the<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> decrease in PNUE. A similar relationship between leaf longevity and the<br />
decreasing rate <strong>of</strong> PNUE was observed in 23 Amazonian tree species (Reich et al.<br />
1991), but no significant relationship was reported in a comparison <strong>of</strong> seven tree<br />
species in an evergreen broadleaf forest in central Japan (Hikosaka and Hirose<br />
2000). In the Amazon, tree species from various habitats were sampled, but the<br />
Japanese species came from a single forest. Plant species in the same habitat tend<br />
to have similar PNUE (Hirose and Werger 1994, 1995).<br />
We can consider this trade-<strong>of</strong>f at the whole-plant level as well, which could bear<br />
on the control <strong>of</strong> resorption and longevity at the leaf level. Nitrogen use efficiency<br />
<strong>of</strong> an individual plant (NUE) is the ratio <strong>of</strong> annual net production and annual nitrogen<br />
absorption, which can be expressed as the product <strong>of</strong> nitrogen productivity (NP, the<br />
annual net production per standing nitrogen mass <strong>of</strong> the plant) and mean residence<br />
time <strong>of</strong> nitrogen (MRT) (Hirose 2002, 2003):<br />
115<br />
NUE = NP × MRT (10.1)<br />
Nutrient use efficiency can be expressed by the ratio <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> litterfall to<br />
the amount <strong>of</strong> nutrient in the litterfall (Vitousek 1982, 1984); that is to say, the<br />
inverse <strong>of</strong> the nutrient concentration in the litter expresses the nutrient use efficiency.
116 10 Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
If we regress nutrient use efficiency <strong>of</strong> various forests against nutrient absorption<br />
rate, we obtain a decreasing relationship between the two (Vitousek 1982). This<br />
finding suggests that in nutrient-rich forests, nutrient use efficiency (NUE) is low<br />
whereas in nutrient-poor forests the trees use nutrients efficiently. Fertilization<br />
decreased the nutrient use efficiency, indicating this relationship is not merely the<br />
outcome <strong>of</strong> autocorrelation. It is also suggested that if there is a lowest limit <strong>of</strong><br />
nutrient amount to achieve positive net production, the relationship is not a simple<br />
decreasing function, but should be an optimum curve (Bridgham et al. 1995).<br />
When nutrient is resorbed from senescing leaves, total CO 2 assimilation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
canopy can be improved by the shedding <strong>of</strong> older leaves only when the increase<br />
in photosynthesis from resorbed nitrogen (N) exceeds the photosynthesis <strong>of</strong> the<br />
leaves lost. This condition is satisfied if the ratio (100 × PNUE in the old leaves/<br />
PNUE in the young leaves) is less than the percentage <strong>of</strong> N recovered from<br />
senescing leaves before abscission. In other words, the N <strong>of</strong> old leaf × efficiency <strong>of</strong><br />
old leaf should be less than the retranslocation ratio × N <strong>of</strong> old leaf × efficiency<br />
<strong>of</strong> new leaf:<br />
PNUE old / PNUEnew < r<br />
(10.2)<br />
Otherwise, retention <strong>of</strong> the old leaves would result in a higher total CO 2 assimilation<br />
for the whole-leaf biomass. Accordingly, under N limitation, maximum leaf<br />
longevity must be constrained by both the rate <strong>of</strong> decline in PNUE with leaf age<br />
and the efficiency <strong>of</strong> N resorption; the balance between these factors will determine<br />
a minimum relative PNUE for leaf retention. In agreement with the foregoing<br />
expectations, instantaneous PNUE <strong>of</strong> the leaf cohorts in nine Mediterranean tree<br />
species was usually above the predicted minimum PNUE for a leaf to be retained<br />
(Escudero and Mediavilla 2003).<br />
Defense <strong>of</strong> Leaves and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Consistent with a carbon-focused cost–benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity, PNUE<br />
will also be adversely affected and leaf longevity altered if the photosynthetic<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> leaves is impaired during their lifetime. This impairment can occur not<br />
simply because <strong>of</strong> aging <strong>of</strong> tissues but also because <strong>of</strong> either damage through<br />
herbivore and pathogen attack or damage associated with abiotic factors such as<br />
wind or falling branches. The characteristics <strong>of</strong> the leaf can modulate these risks to<br />
at least some degree, and at some cost, the biotic risks through constitutive and<br />
facultative defenses and the abiotic risks through investments in stronger foliar tissue.<br />
Although Chabot and Hicks (1982) raised these points, the associated costs and<br />
benefits have not been incorporated into a theory for leaf longevity. Nor will it be<br />
easy to do so (see Agrawal (2006) for an entry into the tangled history <strong>of</strong> research<br />
on plant defense), but there are at least two possibilities among existing theories <strong>of</strong><br />
defense for establishing links to theory for leaf longevity. Both, in turn, have links<br />
to aspects <strong>of</strong> ecosystem ecology.
Defense <strong>of</strong> Leaves and <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
Fig. 10.6 Relationship between growth and investment for defense. Each curve represents a<br />
hypothetical species; arrows indicate the maximum realized growth rate. The optimal defense<br />
differs depending on the growth rate <strong>of</strong> the plant species. For plants that have a high potential<br />
growth rate, it is advantageous to invest in growth by reducing the investments for defense, but<br />
plants with a lower potential growth rate should invest for defense. (From Coley et al. 1985)<br />
The first possibility is the resource availability theory for plant defense (Coley<br />
et al. 1985; Agrawal 2006). This theory is predicated on the assumption that the<br />
resource environment in which a plant grows will condition its defensive investments.<br />
The theory is developed with reference to herbivores but in principle should<br />
also apply to defense against pathogens. The logic <strong>of</strong> the predictions rests on the<br />
following mathematical model (Coley et al. 1985) generating the series <strong>of</strong> growth<br />
curves shown in Fig. 10.6:<br />
a b<br />
( 1 ) ( )<br />
117<br />
g = G −kD − H − mD<br />
(10.3)<br />
where g is the realized growth rate and G the potential growth rate, which represents<br />
the rate without loss by herbivory or without any defense against herbivory. D is<br />
investment for defense, H the potential herbivory, and k, m, a, and b are constants.<br />
The first term <strong>of</strong> the right-hand side <strong>of</strong> (10.2) is the growth rate, indicating that the<br />
potential growth rate (G) is reduced by the investment for defense (D). The second<br />
term is the level <strong>of</strong> leaf damage from herbivory, suggesting potential herbivory (H)<br />
is reduced by the defense. The subtraction <strong>of</strong> herbivory losses from growth gives
118 10 Ecosystem Perspectives on <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong><br />
the realized growth; note that the herbivore damage is not given by the percentage<br />
but by the absolute difference <strong>of</strong> the two terms.<br />
The resource availability theory predicts a close correlation between leaf longevity<br />
and defense. Plant species in resource-rich, sunny environments should invest more<br />
for growth rather than defense, replacing leaves quickly to avoid declines in aging<br />
leaves and attain vigorous growth at the whole-plant level. Nitrogen-rich leaves<br />
have this high growth potential and short longevity, on one hand, but also are attractive<br />
resources for herbivores on the other (Mooney and Gulmon 1979). Leaves in a<br />
resource-rich environment may incur more herbivore damage (Coley 1988; Coley<br />
and Barone 1996) but can tolerate losses because <strong>of</strong> the high return on investment<br />
possible in the resource-rich environment. On the other hand, plant species in<br />
resource-poor environments will have lower photosynthetic potential and hence<br />
longer-lived leaves. This situation places a premium on investments in defense<br />
over growth. To summarize, the resource availability theory predicts: (a) a negative<br />
correlation between growth and defense, and a positive correlation between growth<br />
and amount <strong>of</strong> herbivory, and (b) a positive correlation between leaf longevity and<br />
defense and a negative correlation between leaf longevity and growth. The theory<br />
does not address interspecific variation in leaf longevity among co-occurring<br />
species, but at least it has the potential to link theory for leaf longevity to environmental<br />
gradients in resource availability that affect ecosystem productivity.<br />
Timing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> Emergence, <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
and <strong>Leaf</strong> Defense<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the earliest theories for plant defense, the apparency theory (Feeny 1970,<br />
1976), also has bearing on theory for leaf longevity. Apparency theory made a<br />
qualitative argument that if plants were more easily found by herbivores or pathogens<br />
because <strong>of</strong> their abundance, stature, persistence, or some similar factor, then<br />
they would be subject to more frequent and diverse attacks and should have a<br />
quantitative defense founded on reducing foliage quality for the attacker by heavy<br />
investments in tannins, fiber, and other constitutive defenses. Conversely, a less<br />
apparent plant would escape generalist herbivores or opportunistic pathogens and<br />
need only mount a less costly, qualitative defense against potential attackers specially<br />
adapted to finding the plant despite its lack <strong>of</strong> apparency. The ideas are<br />
simple but in some ways compelling and not without support (Agrawal 2006).<br />
This apparency perspective on defense is interesting for theory <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity<br />
because it might provide a link between leaf phenology and leaf longevity, and<br />
leaf phenology in turn is being altered by global warming (Parmesan 2006).<br />
Collating coherent data on the frequency and intensity <strong>of</strong> losses to herbivory and<br />
disease at the community and ecosystem levels may allow probabilistic estimates<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaf vulnerability that could be incorporated into an improved theory <strong>of</strong> leaf<br />
longevity.
Linking <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and Ecosystem Function<br />
Linking <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong> and Ecosystem Function<br />
In summary and conclusion, there are two aspects <strong>of</strong> ecosystem studies that potentially<br />
can inform a theory for leaf longevity. First, if knowledge <strong>of</strong> ecosystem function<br />
lets us effectively quantify the carbon costs <strong>of</strong> acquiring nitrogen and<br />
phosphorus across ecosystems, then we could more explicitly assess the costs and<br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> acquiring these resources through resorption versus uptake from soil.<br />
Second, if we could effectively quantify the age-dependent risks <strong>of</strong> leaves for<br />
herbivore or disease damage across ecosystems, then we could better factor this<br />
aspect into the accounting <strong>of</strong> the carbon costs <strong>of</strong> leaf construction. In principle, both<br />
avenues hold promise, but in practice neither is likely to soon yield a firm quantitative<br />
foundation for the test <strong>of</strong> a refined theory for leaf longevity. That realization,<br />
however, does not preclude a priori refinement <strong>of</strong> the theories that qualitatively<br />
explore these relationships at the leaf and whole-plant levels.<br />
119
References<br />
Abadia A, Gil E, Morales F, Montanes L, Montserrat G, Abadia J (1996) Marcescence and senescence<br />
in a submediterranean oak (Quercus subpyrenaica E.H. del Villar): photosynthetic characteristics<br />
and nutrient composition. Plant, Cell and Environment 19:685–694<br />
Abul-Fatih HA, Bazzaz FA (1980) The biology <strong>of</strong> Ambrosia trifida L. IV. Demography <strong>of</strong> plants<br />
and leaves. New Phytologist 84:107–111<br />
Ackerly DD (1996) Canopy structure and dynamics: integration <strong>of</strong> growth processes in tropical<br />
pioneer trees. In: Mulkey SS, Chazdon RL, Smith AP (eds) Tropical forest plant ecophysiology.<br />
Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 619–658<br />
Ackerly DD (1999) Self-shading, carbon gain and leaf dynamics: a test <strong>of</strong> alternative optimality<br />
models. Oecologia 119:300–310<br />
Ackerly D (2004) Functional strategies <strong>of</strong> chaparral shrubs in relation to seasonal water deficit and<br />
disturbance. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong> 74:25–44<br />
Ackerly DD, Bazzaz FA (1995) <strong>Leaf</strong> dynamics, self-shading and carbon gain in seedlings <strong>of</strong> a<br />
tropical pioneer tree. Oecologia 101:289–298<br />
Addicott FT (1982) Abscission. University <strong>of</strong> California Press, Berkeley, 369 pp<br />
Agrawal AA (2006) Macroevolution <strong>of</strong> plant defense strategies. Trends in <strong>Ecology</strong> and Evolution<br />
22:103–109<br />
Ash J (1986) Demography and production <strong>of</strong> Leptopteris wilkesiana (Osmundaceae), a tropical<br />
tree fern from Fiji. Australian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 34:207–215<br />
Ash J (1987) Demography <strong>of</strong> Cyathea hornei (Cyatheaceae), a tropical tree-fern in Fiji. Australian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 35:331–342<br />
Balster NJ, Marshall JD (2000) Decreased needle longevity <strong>of</strong> fertilized Douglas-fir and grand fir<br />
in the northern Rockies. Tree Physiology 20:1191–1197<br />
Barlow PW (1989) Meristems, metamers and modules and the development <strong>of</strong> shoot and root<br />
systems. Botanical Journal <strong>of</strong> the Linnean Society 100:255–279<br />
Barthélémy S, Caraglio Y (2007) Plant architecture: a dynamic, multilevel and comprehensive<br />
approach to plant form, structure and ontogeny. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 99:375–407<br />
Bazzaz FA (1979) The physiological ecology <strong>of</strong> plant succession. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and<br />
Systematics 10:351–371<br />
Bazzaz FA, Harper JL (1977) Demographic analysis <strong>of</strong> the growth <strong>of</strong> Linum usitatissimum. New<br />
Phytologist 78:193–208<br />
Beadle NCW (1954) Soil phosphate and the delimitation <strong>of</strong> plant communities in eastern<br />
Australia. <strong>Ecology</strong> 35:370–375<br />
Beadle NCW (1966) Soil phosphate and its role in moulding segments <strong>of</strong> the Australian flora and<br />
vegetation with special reference to xeromorphy and sclerophylly. <strong>Ecology</strong> 47:991–1007<br />
Bell KL, Bliss LC (1977) Overwinter phenology <strong>of</strong> plants in a polar semi-desert. Arctic<br />
30:118–121<br />
Bentley BL (1979) <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> individual leaves in a tropical rainforest under-story. Annals <strong>of</strong><br />
Botany 43:119–121<br />
K. Kikuzawa and M.J. Lechowicz, <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Leaf</strong> <strong>Longevity</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong>, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-53918-6, © Springer 2011<br />
121
122 References<br />
Blackman VH (1919) The compound interest law and plant growth. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
33:353–360<br />
Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants – an economic analogy.<br />
Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and Systematics 16:363–392<br />
Borchert R (1994) Water storage in soil or tree stems determines phenology and distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
tropical dry forest trees. <strong>Ecology</strong> 75:1437–1449<br />
Borchert R, Robertson K, Schwartz MD, Williams-Linera G (2005) Phenology <strong>of</strong> temperate trees<br />
in tropical climates. International Journal <strong>of</strong> Biometeorology 50:57–65<br />
Bowes BG (1997) A Color Atlas <strong>of</strong> Plant Structure, Manson Publishing<br />
Boyce CK, Knoll AH (2002) Evolution <strong>of</strong> developmental potential and the multiple independent<br />
origins <strong>of</strong> leaves in Paleozoic vascular plants. Paleobiology 28:70–100<br />
Brentnall SJ, Beerling DJ, Osborne CP, Harland M, Francis JE, Valdes PJ, Wittig VE (2005)<br />
Climatic and ecological determinants <strong>of</strong> leaf lifespan in polar forests <strong>of</strong> the high CO 2<br />
Cretaceous ‘greenhouse’ world. Global Change Biology 11:2177–2195<br />
Bridgham SD, Pastor J, McClaugherty CA, Richardson CJ (1995) Nutrient-use efficiency: a litterfall<br />
index, a model, and a test along a nutrient-availability gradient in North Carolina peatlands.<br />
American Naturalist 145:1–21<br />
Brown JH, West GB, Enquist BJ (2005) Yes, West, Brown and Enquist’s model <strong>of</strong> allometric scaling<br />
is both mathematically correct and biologically relevant. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 19:735–738<br />
Bussotti F (2008) Functional leaf traits, plant communities and acclimation processes in relation<br />
to oxidative stress in trees: a critical overview. Global Change Biology 14:363–373<br />
Caesar JC, MacDonald AD (1984) Shoot development in Betula papyrifera. IV. Comparisons<br />
between growth characteristics and expression <strong>of</strong> vegetative long and short shoots. Canadian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 62:446–453<br />
Casper BB, Forseth IN, Kempenich H, Seltzer S, Xavier K (2001) Drought prolongs leaf life span<br />
in the herbaceous desert perennial Cryptantha flava. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 15:740–747<br />
Castro-Diez P, Milla R, Sanz V (2005) Phenological comparison between two co-occurring<br />
Mediterranean woody species differing in growth form. Flora 200:88–95<br />
Chabot BF, Hicks DJ (1982) The ecology <strong>of</strong> leaf life spans. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and<br />
Systematics 13:229–259<br />
Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Swenson NG, Zanne AE (2009) Towards a worldwide<br />
wood economics spectrum. <strong>Ecology</strong> Letters 12:351–366<br />
Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter DW, Chambers JQ, Thomlinson JR, Ni J (2001) Measuring net<br />
primary production in forests: concepts and field methods. <strong>Ecological</strong> Applications<br />
11:356–370<br />
Clifford EG (1972) The quantitative analysis <strong>of</strong> plant growth. Blackwell, Oxford, 734 pages<br />
Cline MG (1997) Concepts and terminology <strong>of</strong> apical dominance. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
84:1064–1069<br />
Coley PD (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics <strong>of</strong> tree species in a lowland tropical forest.<br />
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong> 53:209–233<br />
Coley PD (1988) Effects <strong>of</strong> plant growth rate and leaf lifetime on the amount and type <strong>of</strong> antiherbivore<br />
defense. Oecologia 74:531–536<br />
Coley PD, Barone JA (1996) Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annual Review <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> and Systematics 27:305–335<br />
Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS III (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense.<br />
Science 230:895–899<br />
Comstock J, Ehleringer J (1986) Canopy dynamics and carbon gain in response to soil water availability<br />
in Encelia frutescens gray, a drought-deciduous shrub. Oecologia 68:271–278<br />
Condit R, Watts K, Bohlman SA, Perez R, Foster RB, Hubbell SP (2000) Quantifying the deciduousness<br />
<strong>of</strong> tropical forest canopies under varying climates. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vegetation Science<br />
11:649–658<br />
Cordell S, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC, Vitousek PM (2001) Regulation <strong>of</strong> leaf life-span and nutrient-use<br />
efficiency <strong>of</strong> Metrosideros polymorpha trees at two extremes <strong>of</strong> a long chronosequence<br />
in Hawaii. Oecologia 127:198–206
References<br />
Cornelissen JHC, Perez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Grime JP, Marzano B, Cabido M, Vendramini<br />
F, Cerabolini B (1999) <strong>Leaf</strong> structure and defence control litter decomposition rate across<br />
species and life forms in regional floras on two continents. New Phytologist 143:191–200<br />
Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S et al (2003) A handbook <strong>of</strong> protocols for standardised and easy<br />
measurement <strong>of</strong> plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 51:335–380<br />
Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE,<br />
Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Quested HM, Santiago LS, Wardle DA,<br />
Wright IJ, Aerts R, Allison SD, van Bodegom P, Brovkin V, Chatain A, Callaghan TV, Díaz S,<br />
Garnier E, Gurvich DE, Kazakou E, Klein JA, Read J, Reich PB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Vaieretti<br />
MV, Westoby M (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition<br />
rates within biomes worldwide. <strong>Ecology</strong> Letters 11:1065–1071<br />
Coxall HK, Pearson PN (2007) The Eocene–Oligocene transition. In: Williams M, Hayward A,<br />
Gregory J, Schmidt D (eds) Deep time perspectives on climate change: marrying the signal<br />
from computer models and biological proxies. Micropalaeontological Society Special<br />
Publication 2, Geological Society <strong>of</strong> London, pp 351–387<br />
Craine JM, Berin DM, Reich PB, Tilman DG, Knops JMH (1999) Measurement <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity<br />
<strong>of</strong> 14 species <strong>of</strong> grasses and forbs using a novel approach. New Phytologist 142:475–481<br />
Critchfield WB (1960) <strong>Leaf</strong> dimorphism in Populus trichocarpa. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
47:699–711<br />
Critchfield WB (1971) Shoot growth and heterophylly in Acer. Journal <strong>of</strong> the Arnold Arboretum<br />
52:240–266<br />
Cyr H, Pace ML (1993) Allometric Theory: Extrapolations from individuals to communities.<br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> 74:1234–1245<br />
Dengler NG, Tsukaya H (2001) <strong>Leaf</strong> morphogenesis in dicotyledons: current issues. International<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant Science 162:459–464<br />
DePamphilis CW, Neufeld HS (1989) Phenology and ecophysiology <strong>of</strong> Aesculus sylvatica, a<br />
vernal understory trees. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 67:2161–2167<br />
Díaz S, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Cabido M, Cornelissen JHC, Jalili A, Montserrat-Martí G, Grime<br />
JP, Zarrinkamar F, Asri Y, Band SR, Basconcelo S, Castro-Díez P, Funes G, Hamzehee B,<br />
Khoshnevi M, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Pérez-Rontomé MC, Shirvany FA, Vendramini F, Yazdani S,<br />
Abbas-Azimi R, Bogaard A, Boustani S, Charles M, Dehghan M, de Torres-Espuny L, Falczuk V,<br />
Guerrero-Campo J, Hynd A, Jones G, Kowsary E, Kazemi-Saeed F, Maestro-Martínez M, Romo-<br />
Díez A, Shaw S, Siavash B, Villar-Salvador P, Zak MR (2004) The plant traits that drive ecosystems:<br />
evidence from three continents. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vegetation Science 15:295–304<br />
Diemer M (1998a) Life span and dynamics <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> herbaceous perennials in high-elevation<br />
environments: ‘news from the elephant’s leg’. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 12:413–425<br />
Diemer M (1998b) <strong>Leaf</strong> lifespans <strong>of</strong> high-elevation, aseasonal Andean shrub species in relation to<br />
leaf traits and leaf habit. Global <strong>Ecology</strong> and Biogeography Letters 7:457–465<br />
Diemer M, Korner Ch (1996) Lifetime leaf carbon balances <strong>of</strong> herbaceous perennial plants from<br />
low and high altitudes in the central Alps. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 10:33–43<br />
Diemer M, Korner Ch, Prock S (1992) <strong>Leaf</strong> life spans in wild perennial herbaceous plants: a<br />
survey and attempts at a functional interpretation. Oecologia 89:10–16<br />
Dimichele WA, Montanez IP, Poulsen CJ, Tabor NJ (2009) Climate and vegetational regime shifts<br />
in the late Paleozoic ice age earth. Geobiology 7:200–226<br />
Dominy NJ, Lucas PW, Ramsden LW, Riba-Hernandez P, Stoner KE, Turner IM (2002) Why are<br />
young leaves red? Oikos 98:163–176<br />
Donoghue MJ (2005) Key innovations, convergence, and success: macroevolutionary lessons<br />
from plant phylogeny. Paleobiology 31:77–93<br />
Dungan RJ, Duncan RP, Whitehead D (2003) Investigating leaf lifespans with interval-censored<br />
failure time analysis. New Phytologist 158:593–600<br />
Dungan RJ, Navas M-L, Duncan RP, Garnier E (2008) Effects <strong>of</strong> leaf emergence on leaf lifespan<br />
are independent <strong>of</strong> life form and successional status. Austral <strong>Ecology</strong> 33:932–939<br />
Eamus D (1999) Ecophysiological traits <strong>of</strong> deciduous and evergreen woody species in the seasonally<br />
dry tropics. Trends in <strong>Ecology</strong> and Evolution 14:11–16<br />
123
124 References<br />
Eamus D, Prior L (2001) Ecophysiology <strong>of</strong> trees <strong>of</strong> seasonally dry tropics: comparisons among<br />
phenologies. Advances in <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> 32:113–197<br />
Eamus D, Myers B, Duff G, Williams R (1999a) A cost-benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> eight<br />
Australian savanna tree species <strong>of</strong> differing leaf life-span. Photosynthetica 36:575–586<br />
Eamus D, Myers B, Duff G, Williams D (1999b) Seasonal changes in photosynthesis <strong>of</strong> eight<br />
savanna tree species. Tree physiology 19:665–671<br />
Eckstein RL, Karlsson PS, Weih M (1999) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span and nutrient resorption as determinants<br />
<strong>of</strong> plant nutrient conservation in temperate-arctic regions. New Phytologist 143:177–189<br />
Edwards PL, Grubb PJ (1977) Studies <strong>of</strong> mineral cycling in a montane rain forest in New Guinea. I.<br />
The distribution <strong>of</strong> organic matter in the vegetation and soil. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 65:943–969<br />
Ellsworth DS, Reich PB, Naumburg ES, Koch GW, Kubiske ME, Smith SD (2004) Photosynthesis,<br />
carboxylation and leaf nitrogen responses <strong>of</strong> 16 species to elevated pCO 2 across four free-air<br />
CO 2 enrichment experiments in forest, grassland and desert. Global Change Biology<br />
10:2121–2138<br />
Elser JJ, Fagan WF, Denno RF, Dobberfuhl DR, Folarin A, Huberty A, Interlandi S, Kilham SS,<br />
McCauley E, Schulz K, Siemann EH, Sterner RW (2000) Nutritional constraints in terrestrial<br />
and freshwater food webs. Nature 408:578–580<br />
Enquist BJ, Kerkh<strong>of</strong>f AJ, Stark SC, Swenson NG, McCarthy MC, Price CA (2007) A general<br />
integrative model for scaling plant growth, carbon flux, and functional trait spectra. Nature<br />
449:218–222<br />
Enright NJ, Hill RS (eds) (1995) <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> the southern conifers. Smithsonian Institution Press,<br />
Washington, DC<br />
Erley GS, Rademacher I, Kuhbauch W (2002) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span <strong>of</strong> a fast- and slow-growing grass as<br />
dependent on nitrogen supply. Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Botany 76:8–12<br />
Escudero A, Mediavilla S (2003) Decline in photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency with leaf age<br />
and nitrogen resorption as determinants <strong>of</strong> leaf life span. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 91:880–889<br />
Evans JR (1989) Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationships in leaves <strong>of</strong> C-3 plants. Oecologia<br />
78:9–19<br />
Ewers FW, Schmid R (1981) <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> needle fascicles <strong>of</strong> Pinus longaeva (bristle cone pine)<br />
and other North American pines. Oecologia 51:107–115<br />
Falcon-Lang HJ (2000a) A method to distinguish between woods produced by evergreen and<br />
deciduous coniferopsids on the basis <strong>of</strong> growth ring anatomy: a new palaeoecological tool.<br />
Palaeontology 43:785–793<br />
Falcon-Lang HJ (2000b) The relationship between leaf longevity and growth ring markedness in<br />
modern conifer woods and its implications for palaeoclimatic studies. Palaeogeography,<br />
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 160:317–328<br />
Falcon-Lang HJ, Cantrill DJ (2001) <strong>Leaf</strong> phenology <strong>of</strong> some mid-Cretaceous polar forests,<br />
Alexander Island, Antarctica. Geological Magazine 138:39–52<br />
Feeny P (1970) Seasonal changes in oak leaf tannins and nutrients as a cause <strong>of</strong> spring feeding by<br />
winter moth caterpillars. <strong>Ecology</strong> 51:565–581<br />
Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds)<br />
Biochemical interaction between plants and insects. Plenum, New York, pp 1–40<br />
Field C (1983) Allocating leaf nitrogen for the maximization <strong>of</strong> carbon gain: leaf age as a control<br />
on the allocation program. Oecologia 56:341–347<br />
Field CB (1991) <strong>Ecological</strong> scaling <strong>of</strong> carbon gain to stress and resource availability. In: Mooney<br />
HA, Winner WE, Pell EJ (eds) Response <strong>of</strong> plants to multiple stresses. Academic, New York,<br />
pp 35–65<br />
Field C, Mooney HA (1986) The photosynthesis–nitrogen relation in wild plants. In: Givnish TJ (ed)<br />
On the economy <strong>of</strong> plant form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 25–56<br />
Fonseca CR (1994) Herbivory and the long-lived leaves <strong>of</strong> an Amazonian ant-tree. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> 82:833–842<br />
Foster AS (1929) Investigations on the morphology and comparative history <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
foliar organs. I. The foliage leaves and cataphyllary structures in horsechestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum<br />
L.). American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 16:441–474
References<br />
Foster AS (1931) Investigations on the morphology and comparative history <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
foliar organs II. Cataphyll and foliage leaf form and organization in the black hickory (Carya<br />
bukleyi var. arkansana). American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 18:864–887<br />
Franco AC, Bustamante M, Caldas LS, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC, Kozovits AR, Rundel P,<br />
Coradin VTR (2005) <strong>Leaf</strong> functional traits <strong>of</strong> Neotropical savanna trees in relation to seasonal<br />
water deficit. Trees 19:326–335<br />
Frankie GW, Baker HG, Opler PA (1974) Comparative phenological studies <strong>of</strong> trees in tropical<br />
wet and dry forests in the lowlands <strong>of</strong> Cost Rica. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 62:881–919<br />
Furuno T, Uenishi S, Uenish K (1979) Investigations on the productivity <strong>of</strong> Japanese fir (Abies<br />
firma Sieb. et Zucc,) and hemlock (Tsuga sieboldii Carr.) stands in Kyoto University Forest in<br />
Wakayama (in Japanese). Bulletin <strong>of</strong> Kyoto University Forest 51:58–70<br />
Gan S, Amasino RM (1997) Making sense <strong>of</strong> senescence: molecular genetic regulation and<br />
manipulation <strong>of</strong> leaf senescence. Plant Physiology 113:313–319<br />
Garrison R (1949a) Origin and development <strong>of</strong> axillary buds: Syringa vulgaris L. American<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 36:205–213<br />
Garrison R (1949b) Origin and development <strong>of</strong> axillary buds: Betula papyrifera Marsh. and<br />
Euptelea polyandra Sieb. et Zucc. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 36:379–389<br />
Garrison R (1955) Studies in the development <strong>of</strong> axillary buds. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
42:257–266<br />
Gebauer RLE, Reynolds JF, Tenhunen JD (1998) Diurnal patterns <strong>of</strong> CO 2 and H 2 O exchange <strong>of</strong><br />
the arctic sedges Eriophorum angustifolium and E. vaginatum (Cyperaceae). American<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 85:592–599<br />
Gifford RM, Evans LT (1981) Photosynthesis, carbon partitioning and yield. Annual Review <strong>of</strong><br />
Plant Physiology 32:485–509<br />
Gill AM, Tomlinson PB (1971) Studies on the growth <strong>of</strong> red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle L.)<br />
3. Phenology <strong>of</strong> the shoot. Biotropica 3:109–124<br />
Givnish TJ (2002) Adaptive significance <strong>of</strong> evergreen vs. deciduous leaves: solving the triple paradox.<br />
Silva Fennica 36:703–743<br />
Gower ST, Richards JH (1990) Larches: deciduous conifers in an evergreen world. BioScience<br />
40:818–826<br />
Gower ST, Reich PB, Son Y (1993) Canopy dynamics and aboveground production <strong>of</strong> five tree<br />
species with different leaf longevities. Tree Physiology 12:327–345<br />
Greenway KJ, Macdonald SE, Lieffers VJ (1992) Is long-lived foliage in Picea marinana an<br />
adaptation to nutrient-poor conditions? Oecologia 91:184–191<br />
Gregory FG (1956) General aspects <strong>of</strong> leaf growth. In: Milthorpe FL (ed) The growth <strong>of</strong> leaves.<br />
Butterworths Scientific Publications, London, pp 3–17<br />
Griffin KL (1994) Calorimetric estimates <strong>of</strong> construction cost and their use in ecological studies.<br />
Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 8:551–562<br />
Grime JP, Cornelissen HC, Thompson K, Hodgson JG (1996) Evidence <strong>of</strong> a causal connection<br />
between anti-herbivore defence and the decomposition rate <strong>of</strong> leaves. Oikos 77:489–494<br />
Grisebach A (1838) Ueber den Einfluss des Climas auf die Begranzung der natürlichen Floren.<br />
Linnaea 12:159–200<br />
Grisebach A (1884) Die Vegetation der Erde nach ihrer klimatischen Anordnung. Ein Abriss<br />
der vergleichenden Geographie der Pflanzen, 2nd edn, 2 vols. Leipzig, Engelmann, 567 and<br />
693 pp<br />
Guarente L, Ruvkun G, Amasino R (1998) Aging, life span, and senescence. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the<br />
National Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences <strong>of</strong> the United States <strong>of</strong> America 95:11034–11036<br />
Hallé F (1978) Architectural variation at specific level <strong>of</strong> tropical trees. In: Tomlinson PB,<br />
Zimmermann MH (eds) Tropical trees as living systems. Cambridge University Press,<br />
Cambridge, pp 209–221<br />
Hallé F (1986) Modular growth in seed plants. Philosophical Transactions <strong>of</strong> the Royal Society <strong>of</strong><br />
London, Series B 313:77–87<br />
Hamilton RG (1990) Frond emergence in two species <strong>of</strong> athyrioid ferns. Evolutionary Trends in<br />
Plants 4:117–120<br />
125
126 References<br />
Han W, Fang J, Guo D, Zhang Y (2005) <strong>Leaf</strong> nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry across 753<br />
terrestrial plant species in China. New Phytologist 168:377–385<br />
Hanba YT, Miyazawa S-I, Terashima I (1999) The influence <strong>of</strong> leaf thickness on the CO 2 transfer<br />
conductance and leaf stable carbon isotope ratio for some evergreen tree species in Japanese<br />
warm-temperate forests. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 13:632–639<br />
Hanba YT, Shibasaka M, Hayashi Y, Hayakawa T, Kasamo K, Terashima I, Katsuhara M (2004)<br />
Overexpression <strong>of</strong> the barley aquaporin HvPIP 2;1 increases internal CO 2 conductance and<br />
CO 2 assimilation the leaves <strong>of</strong> transgenic rice plants. Plant Cell Physiology 45:521–529<br />
Hardwick K, Wood M, Woolhouse HW (1968) Photosynthesis and respiration in relation to leaf<br />
age in Perilla frutescens (L.) Britt. New Phytologist 67:79–86<br />
Harper JL (1989) The value <strong>of</strong> a leaf. Oecologia 80:53–58<br />
Hatta H, Darnaedi D (eds) (2005) Phenology and growth habits <strong>of</strong> tropical trees. National Science<br />
Museum, Tsukuba, 439 pp<br />
Hemminga MA, Marba N, Stapel J (1999) <strong>Leaf</strong> nutrient resorption, leaf lifespan and the retention<br />
<strong>of</strong> nutrients in seagrass systems. Aquatic Botany 65:141–158<br />
Hensel L, Grbic V, Baumgarten DA, Bleecker AB (1993) Developmental and age-related<br />
processes that influence the longevity and senescence <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic tissues in Arabidopsis.<br />
The Plant Cell 5:553–564<br />
Herbert DA, Fownes JH (1999) Forest productivity and efficiency <strong>of</strong> resource use across a chronosequence<br />
<strong>of</strong> tropical montane soils. Ecosystems 2:242–254<br />
Hidema J, Makino A, Mae T, Ojima K (1991) Photosynthetic characteristics <strong>of</strong> rice leaves aged under<br />
different irradiances from full expansion through senescence. Plant Physiology 97:1287–1293<br />
Hikosaka K (1998) Why leaves senesce? (in Japanese). Kagaku 68:88–93<br />
Hikosaka K (2003a) Photosynthesis in plant community: plant community as an assembly <strong>of</strong><br />
leaves and individuals. In: Muraoka Y, Kachi N (eds) Light, water and plant architecture.<br />
Bunichi Sogo Shuppan, Tokyo, pp 57–84<br />
Hikosaka K (2003b) A model <strong>of</strong> dynamics <strong>of</strong> leaves and nitrogen in a plant canopy: an integration<br />
<strong>of</strong> canopy photosynthesis, leaf life span, and nitrogen use efficiency. American Naturalist<br />
162:149–164<br />
Hikosaka K (2005) <strong>Leaf</strong> canopy as a dynamic system: ecophysiology and optimality in leaf turnover.<br />
Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 95:521–533<br />
Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2000) Photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency in evergreen broad-leaved<br />
woody species coexisting in a warm-temperate forest. Tree Physiology 20:1249–1254<br />
Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2001) Nitrogen uptake and use by competing individuals in a Xanthium<br />
canadense stand. Oecologia 126:174–181<br />
Hikosaka K, Osone Y (2009) A paradox <strong>of</strong> leaf-trait convergence: why is leaf nitrogen concentration<br />
higher in species with higher photosynthetic capacity? Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant <strong>Research</strong><br />
122:245–251<br />
Hiremath AJ (2000) Photosynthetic nutrient-use efficiency in three fast-growing tropical trees<br />
with differing leaf longevities. Tree Physiology 20:937–944<br />
Hirose T (2002) Photosynthesis and matter production in plant community (in Japanese). In: Sato K<br />
(ed) Photosynthesis. Asakura Shoten, Tokyo<br />
Hirose T (2003) Nitrogen use efficiency (in Japanese). In: Iwasa Y, Matsumoto T, Kikuzawa K<br />
(eds) Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong> ecology. Kyoritsu Shuppan, Tokyo, pp 395–396<br />
Hirose T, Werger MJA (1987a) Nitrogen use efficiency in instantaneous and daily photosynthesis<br />
<strong>of</strong> leaves in the canopy <strong>of</strong> a Solidago altissima stand. Physiologia Plantarum 70:215–222<br />
Hirose T, Werger MJA (1987b) Maximizing daily canopy photosynthesis with respect to the leaf<br />
nitrogen allocation pattern in the canopy. Oecologia 72:520–526<br />
Hirose T, Werger MJA (1994) Photosynthetic capacity and nitrogen partitioning among species in<br />
the canopy <strong>of</strong> a herbaceous plant community. Oecologia 100:203–212<br />
Hirose T, Werger MJA (1995) Canopy structure and photon flux partitioning among species in an<br />
herbaceous plant community. <strong>Ecology</strong> 76:466–474<br />
Hirose T, Werger MJA, van Rheenen JWA (1989) Canopy development and leaf nitrogen distribution<br />
in a stand <strong>of</strong> Carex acutiformis. <strong>Ecology</strong> 70:1610–1618
References<br />
Hodanova D (1981) Photosynthetic capacity, irradiance and sequential senescence <strong>of</strong> sugar beet<br />
leaves. Biologia Plantarum (Praha) 23:58–67<br />
Howe GA, Jander G (2008) Plant immunity to insect herbivores. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Plant Biology<br />
59:41–66<br />
Humboldt A, Bonpland A (1807) Essai sur la géographie des plantes. Editions Européennes<br />
Erasme, Nanterre, 155 pp<br />
Imai N, Takyu M, Nakamura Y (2009) Growth, crown architecture and leaf dynamics <strong>of</strong> saplings<br />
<strong>of</strong> five mangrove tree species in Ranong, Thailand. Marine <strong>Ecology</strong> Progress Series<br />
377:139–148<br />
Isebrands JG, Nelson ND (1982) Crown architecture <strong>of</strong> short-rotation, intensively cultured<br />
Populus II. Branch morphology and distribution <strong>of</strong> leaves within the crown <strong>of</strong> Populus ‘Tristis’<br />
as related to biomass production. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Forest <strong>Research</strong> 12:853–864<br />
Ishida A, Tani T (2003) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> water use in plants. 1. Terrestrial plants and water<br />
(in Japanese). In: Muraoka Y, Kachi N (eds) Light, water and plant architecture. Bunichi Sogo<br />
Shuppan, Tokyo, pp 271–291<br />
Ishida A, Toma T, Marjenah (1999) <strong>Leaf</strong> gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence in relation to<br />
leaf angle, azimuth, and canopy position in the tropical pioneer tree, Macaranga conifera. Tree<br />
Physiology 19:117–124<br />
Ishida A, Nakano T, Yazaki K, Matsuki S, Koike N, Lauenstein DL, Shimizu M, Yamashita N<br />
(2008) Coordination between leaf and stem traits related to leaf carbon gain and hydraulics<br />
across 32 drought-tolerant angiosperms. Oecologia 156:193–202<br />
Ishihara M, Kikuzawa K (2004) Species-specific variation in shoot production patterns <strong>of</strong> five<br />
birch species with respect to vegetative and reproductive shoots. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
82:1393–1401<br />
Janišová M (2007) <strong>Leaf</strong> demography <strong>of</strong> Festuca pallens in dry grassland communities. Biologia<br />
(Section Botany – Bratislava) 62:32–40<br />
Janzen DH (1976) Why bamboos wait so long to flower. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and<br />
Systematics 7:347–391<br />
Jonasson S (1995) Resource allocation in relation to leaf retention time <strong>of</strong> the wintergreen<br />
Rhododendron lapponicum. <strong>Ecology</strong> 76:475–485<br />
Jonasson S, Chapin FS III (1985) Significance <strong>of</strong> sequential leaf development for nutrient balance<br />
<strong>of</strong> the cotton sedge, Eriophorum vaginatum L. Oecologia 67:511–518<br />
Jonasson S, Medrano H, Flexas J (1997) Variation in leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> Pistacia lentiscus and its<br />
relationship to sex and drought stress inferred from leaf ∂13C. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 11:282–289<br />
Jones M (1985) Modular demography and form in silver birch. In: White J (ed) Studies on plant<br />
demography. Academic, New York, pp 223–238<br />
Jones ML (2004) Changes in gene expression during senescence. In: Nooden LD (ed) Plant cell<br />
death processes. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 51–71<br />
Jones JDG (2006) The plant immune system. Nature 444:323–329<br />
Jones CS, Watson MA (2001) Heteroblasty and preformation in mayapple, Podophyllum peltatum<br />
(Berberidaceae): developmental flexibility and morphological constraint. American Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Botany 88:1340–1358<br />
Jow WM, Bullock SH, Kummerow J (1980) <strong>Leaf</strong> turnover rates <strong>of</strong> Adenostoma fasciculatum<br />
(Rosaceae). American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 67:256–261<br />
Jurik TW (1986) Seasonal patterns <strong>of</strong> leaf photosynthetic capacity in successional northern hardwood<br />
tree species. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 73:131–138<br />
Jurik TW, Chabot BF (1986) <strong>Leaf</strong> dynamics and pr<strong>of</strong>itability in wild strawberries. Oecologia<br />
69:296–304<br />
Jurik TW, Chabot JF, Chabot BF (1979) Ontogeny <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic performance in Fragaria<br />
virginiana under changing light regimes. Plant Physiology 63:542–547<br />
Kai K, Horiuchi T, Nomoto N (1991) Seasonal behavior <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> the semideciduous shrub<br />
Ligustrum obtusifolium. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 41:73–82<br />
Kajimoto T (1990) Photosynthesis and respiration <strong>of</strong> Pinus pumila needles in relation to needle<br />
age and season. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> 5:333–340<br />
127
128 References<br />
Kamermans P, Hemming MA, Marba N, Mateo MA, Mtolera M, Staper J (2001) <strong>Leaf</strong> production,<br />
shoot demography, and flowering <strong>of</strong> Thalassodendron ciliatum along the east African coast.<br />
Aquatic Botany 70:243–258<br />
Kanda F (1988) Survival curves <strong>of</strong> the leaves <strong>of</strong> Alnus japonica var. arguta in Kushiro Moor.<br />
Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 38:19–26<br />
Kanda F (1996) Survival curves and longevity <strong>of</strong> the leaves <strong>of</strong> Alnus japonica var arguta in<br />
Kushiro Marsh. Vegetatio 124:61–66<br />
Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press,<br />
Chicago, IL<br />
Karlsson PS (1992) <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity in evergreen shrubs: variation within and among European<br />
species. Oecologia 91:346–349<br />
Kayama S, Sasa K, Koike T (2002) Needle life span, photosynthetic rate and nutrient concentration<br />
<strong>of</strong> Picea glehnii, P. jezoensis and P. abies planted on serpentine soil in northern Japan. Tree<br />
Physiology 22:707–716<br />
Kayama M, Kitaoka S, Wang W, Choi D, Koike T (2007) Needle longevity, photosynthetic rate<br />
and nitrogen concentration <strong>of</strong> eight spruce taxa planted in northern Japan. Tree Physiology<br />
27:1585–1593<br />
Kerkh<strong>of</strong>f AJ, Enquist BJ, Elser JJ, Fagan WF (2005) Plant allometry, stoichiometry and the<br />
temperature-dependence <strong>of</strong> primary productivity. Global <strong>Ecology</strong> and Biogeography<br />
14:585–598<br />
Kikuzawa K (1978) Emergence, defoliation and longevity <strong>of</strong> alder (Alnus hirsuta Turcz.) leaves<br />
in a deciduous hardwood forest stand. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 28:299–306<br />
Kikuzawa K (1980) Why do alder leaves fall in summer? (in Japanese). Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> 30:359–368<br />
Kikuzawa K (1982) <strong>Leaf</strong> survival and evolution in Betulaceae. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 50:345–353<br />
Kikuzawa K (1983) <strong>Leaf</strong> survival <strong>of</strong> woody plants in deciduous broad-leaved forests. 1. Tall trees.<br />
Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 61:2133–2139<br />
Kikuzawa K (1984) <strong>Leaf</strong> survival <strong>of</strong> woody plants in deciduous broad-leaved forests. 2. Small<br />
trees and shrubs. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 62:2551–2556<br />
Kikuzawa K (1986) Development and survival <strong>of</strong> leaves in Magnolia obovata in a deciduous<br />
broad-leaved forest in Hokkaido, northern Japan. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
65:412–417<br />
Kikuzawa K (1988) <strong>Leaf</strong> survival <strong>of</strong> tree species in deciduous broad-leaved forests. Plant Species<br />
Biology 3:67–76<br />
Kikuzawa K (1989) <strong>Ecology</strong> and evolution <strong>of</strong> phenological pattern, leaf longevity and leaf habit.<br />
Evolutionary Trends in Plants 3:105–110<br />
Kikuzawa K (1991) A cost-benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf habit and leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> trees and their<br />
geographical pattern. American Naturalist 138:1250–1263<br />
Kikuzawa K (1995a) The basis for variation in leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> plants. Vegetatio 121:89–100<br />
Kikuzawa K (1995b) <strong>Leaf</strong> phenology as an optimum strategy for carbon gain in plants. Canadian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 73:158–163<br />
Kikuzawa K (1996) Geographical distribution <strong>of</strong> leaf lifespan and species diversity <strong>of</strong> trees simulated<br />
by a leaf longevity model. Plant <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
Kikuzawa K (2003) Phenological and morphological adaptations to the light environment in two<br />
woody and two herbaceous plant species. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 17:29–38<br />
Kikuzawa K (2004) <strong>Ecology</strong> <strong>of</strong> leaf senescence. In: Nooden LD (ed) Plant cell death processes.<br />
Elsevier, San Diego, pp 363–373<br />
Kikuzawa K, Ackerly D (1999) Significance <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity in plants. Plant Species Biology<br />
14:39–46<br />
Kikuzawa K, Kudo G (1995) Effects <strong>of</strong> the length <strong>of</strong> the snow-free period on leaf longevity in<br />
alpine shrubs: a cost-benefit model. Oikos 73:214–220<br />
Kikuzawa K, Lechowicz MJ (2006) Toward synthesis <strong>of</strong> relationships among leaf longevity,<br />
instantaneous photosynthetic rate, lifetime leaf carbon gain, and the gross primary production<br />
<strong>of</strong> forests. American Naturalist 168:373–383
References<br />
Kikuzawa K, Asai T, Higashiura Y (1979) <strong>Leaf</strong> production and the effect <strong>of</strong> defoliation by the<br />
larval population <strong>of</strong> the winter moth Operophtera brumata L. in an alder (Alnus inkumae<br />
Murai et Kusaka) stand. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 29:111–120<br />
Kikuzawa K, Asai T, Fukuchi M (1984) <strong>Leaf</strong>-litter production in a plantation <strong>of</strong> Alnus inokumae.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 72:993–999<br />
Kikuzawa K, Koyama H, Umeki K, Lechowicz MJ (1996) Some evidence for an adaptive linkage<br />
between leaf phenology and shoot architecture in sapling trees. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 10:252–257<br />
Kikuzawa K, Repin R, Yumoto T (1998) How trees expand their leaves in tropical forests: interpretation<br />
by observation <strong>of</strong> shoot morphology. Sabah Parks Nature Journal 1:19–35<br />
Kikuzawa K, Shirakawa H, Suzuki M, Umeki K (2004) Mean labor time <strong>of</strong> a leaf. <strong>Ecological</strong><br />
<strong>Research</strong> 19:365–374<br />
Kikuzawa K, Yagi M, Ohto Y, Umeki K, Lechowicz MJ (2009) Canopy ergodicity: can a single<br />
leaf represent an entire plant canopy? Plant <strong>Ecology</strong> 202:309–323<br />
Killingbeck KT (1996) Nutrients in senesced leaves: keys to the search for potential resorption<br />
and resorption pr<strong>of</strong>iciency. <strong>Ecology</strong> 77:1716–1727<br />
Killingbeck KT (2004) Nutrient resorption. In: Nooden LD (ed) Plant cell death processes.<br />
Elsevier, San Diego, pp 215–226<br />
Kimura M (1963) Dynamics <strong>of</strong> vegetation in relation to soil development in northern Yatugatake<br />
mountains. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 18:255–287<br />
Kimura M, Mototani I, Hogetsu K (1968) <strong>Ecological</strong> and physiological studies on the vegetation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mt. Shimagare. VI. Growth and dry matter production <strong>of</strong> young Abies stand. Botanical<br />
Magazine 81:287–296<br />
King DA (1994) Influence <strong>of</strong> light level on the growth and morphology <strong>of</strong> saplings in a<br />
Panamanian forest. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 81:948–957<br />
Kira T (1949) Forest zone in Japan (in Japanese). Nippon Rigyo Gijutu Kyokai, Tokyo<br />
Kira T (1969) Primary productivity <strong>of</strong> tropical rain forest. Malayan Forester 32:275–284<br />
Kira T (1970) Primary productivity and energetic efficiency in forests (in Japanese). JIBP-PT-F<br />
44:85–92.<br />
Kira T, Yabuki K (1978) Primary production rates in the Minamata forest. In: Kira T, Ono Y,<br />
Hosokawa T (eds) Biological production in a warm-temperate evergreen oak forest <strong>of</strong> Japan.<br />
Tokyo University Press, Tokyo, pp 131–138<br />
Kitajima K, Mulkey SS, Wright SJ (1997) Decline <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity with leaf age in<br />
relation to leaf longevities for five tropical canopy tree species. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
84:702–708<br />
Kitajima K, Mulkey SS, Samaniego M, Wright SJ (2002) Decline <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic capacity with<br />
leaf age and position in two tropical pioneer tree species. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany<br />
89:1925–1932<br />
Kleyer M, Bekker RM, Knevel IC, Bakker JP, Thompson K, Sonnenschein M, Poschlod P, van<br />
Groenendael JM, Klimesová L, Klimesová J, Klotz S, Rusch GM, Hermy M, Adriaens D,<br />
Boedeltje G, Bossuyt B, Dannemann A, Endels P, Götzenberger L, Hodgson JG, Jackel A-K,<br />
Kühn I, Kunzmann D, Ozinga WA, Römermann C, Stadler M, Schlegelmilch J, Steendam HJ,<br />
Tackenberg O, Wilmann B, Cornelissen JHC, Eriksson O, Garnier E, Peco B (2008) The<br />
LEDA traitbase: a database <strong>of</strong> life-history traits <strong>of</strong> the Northwest European flora. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> 96:1266–1274<br />
Kobe RK, Lepczyk CA, Iyer M (2005) Resorption efficiency decreases with increasing green leaf<br />
nutrients in a global data set. <strong>Ecology</strong> 86:2780–2792<br />
Koch E, Bruns E, Defila C, Lipa W, Menzel A (2007) Guidelines for plant phenological observations.<br />
www.adv-sci-res.net/3/119/2009<br />
Kohyama T (1980) Growth pattern <strong>of</strong> Abies mariesii saplings under conditions <strong>of</strong> open-growth<br />
and suppression. Botanical Magazine 93:13–24<br />
Koike T (1988) <strong>Leaf</strong> structure and photosynthetic performance as related to the forest succession<br />
<strong>of</strong> deciduous broad-leaved trees. Plant Species Biology 3:778–799<br />
Koike T (1990) Autumn coloring, photosynthetic performance and leaf development <strong>of</strong> deciduous<br />
broad-leaved trees in relation to forest succession. Tree Physiology 7:21–32<br />
129
130 References<br />
Koike T (1995) Physiological ecology <strong>of</strong> the growth characteristics <strong>of</strong> Japanese mountain birch in<br />
Northern Japan: a comparison with Japanese white birch. In: Box EO et al (eds) Vegetation<br />
science in forestry. Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, pp 409–422<br />
Koike T (2004) Autumn coloration, carbon acquisition and leaf senescence. In: Nooden LD (ed)<br />
Plant cell death processes. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 245–258<br />
Koike T, Sakagami Y (1985) Comparison <strong>of</strong> the photosynthetic responses to temperature and light<br />
<strong>of</strong> Betula maximowicziana and Betula platyphylla var. japonica. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Forest<br />
<strong>Research</strong> 15:631–635<br />
Koike T, Hasler R, Item H (1994) Needle longevity and photosynthetic performance in Cembran<br />
pine and Norway spruce growing on the north- and east-facing slopes at the timerling <strong>of</strong><br />
Stillberg in the Swiss Alps. In: Schmidt WC, Holtmeier F-K (eds) Subalpine stone pines and<br />
their environment: the status <strong>of</strong> our knowledge, St. Moritz/Switzeland Workshop, 5–11 Sept.<br />
1992. INT-GTR-309, USDA Forest Service (Intermountain Res. Sta.), pp 78–80<br />
Koriba K (1947a) On the periodicity <strong>of</strong> tree growth in Malay especially in Singapore (1)<br />
(in Japanese). Physiology and <strong>Ecology</strong> 1:93–109<br />
Koriba K (1947b) On the periodicity <strong>of</strong> tree growth in Malay especially in Singapore (2)<br />
(in Japanese). Physiology and <strong>Ecology</strong> 1:160–170<br />
Koriba K (1948a) On the origin and meaning <strong>of</strong> deciduousness viewed from the seasonal habit <strong>of</strong><br />
trees in the tropics (1) (in Japanese). Physiology and <strong>Ecology</strong> 2:85–93<br />
Koriba K (1948b) On the origin and meaning <strong>of</strong> deciduousness viewed from the seasonal habit <strong>of</strong><br />
trees in the tropics (2) (in Japanese). Physiology and <strong>Ecology</strong> 2:130–139<br />
Koriba K (1958) On the periodicity <strong>of</strong> tree-growth in the tropics, with reference to the mode <strong>of</strong><br />
branching, the leaf-fall, and the formation <strong>of</strong> the resting bud. Gardens Bulletin 17:11–81<br />
Koyama K, Kikuzawa K (2008) Intraspecific variation in leaf life span for the semi-evergreen<br />
liana Akebia trifoliata is caused by both seasonal and aseasonal factors in a temperate forest.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and Field Biology 31:207–211<br />
Koyama K, Kikuzawa K (2009) Is whole-plant photosynthetic rate proportional to leaf area? A<br />
test <strong>of</strong> scalings and a logistic equation by leaf demography census. American Naturalist<br />
173:640–649<br />
Kozlowski TT (1971) Growth and development <strong>of</strong> trees I. Seed germination, ontogeny and shoot<br />
growth. Academic, New York<br />
Kozlowski TT, Clausen JJ (1966) Shoot growth characteristics <strong>of</strong> heterophyllous woody plants.<br />
Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 44:827–843<br />
Kozlowski TT, Pallardy SG (2002) Acclimation and adaptive responses <strong>of</strong> woody plants to environmental<br />
stresses. Botanical Review 68:270–334<br />
Krebs CJ (2008) <strong>Ecology</strong>: the experimental analysis <strong>of</strong> distribution and abundance, 6th edn.<br />
Benjamin-Cummings, New York, 688 pages<br />
Kudo G (1991) Effects <strong>of</strong> snow-free period on the phenology <strong>of</strong> alpine plants inhabiting snow<br />
patches. Arctic and Alpine <strong>Research</strong> 23:436–443<br />
Kudo G (1992) Effect <strong>of</strong> snow-free duration on leaf life-span <strong>of</strong> four alpine plant species.<br />
Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 70:1684–1688<br />
Kudo G (1996) Intraspecific variation <strong>of</strong> leaf traits in several deciduous species in relation to<br />
length <strong>of</strong> growing season. Ecoscience 3:483–489<br />
Kunii H, Aramaki M (1987) Dynamics in aquatic floating leaves <strong>of</strong> Nymphaea tetragona and<br />
Brasenia schreberi (in Japanese). Suiso Kenkyukaiho 29:24–26<br />
Kusumoto T (1961) An ecological analysis <strong>of</strong> the distribution <strong>of</strong> broad-leaved evergreen trees,<br />
based on the dry matter production. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 17:307–331<br />
Kyparissis A, Grammatikopoulos G, Manetas Y (1997) <strong>Leaf</strong> demography and photosynthesis as<br />
affected by the environment in the drought semi-deciduous Mediterranean shrub Phlomis<br />
fruticosa L. Acta Oecologica 18:543–555<br />
Lajtha K, Whitford WG (1989) The effect <strong>of</strong> water and nitrogen amendments on photosynthesis,<br />
leaf demography, and resource-use efficiency in Larrea tridentata, a desert evergreen shrub.<br />
Oecologia 80:341–348<br />
Lambers H, Chapin FS III, Pons TL (1998) Plant physiological ecology. Springer, New York, 540<br />
pages
References<br />
Larcher W (1969) The effect <strong>of</strong> environmental and physiological variables on the carbon dioxide<br />
gas exchange <strong>of</strong> trees. Photosynthetica 3:167–198<br />
Larcher W (1975) Physiological plant ecology. Springer, Berlin<br />
Larcher W (2001) Physiological plant ecology, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin<br />
Lavorel S, Garnier E (2002) Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning<br />
from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 16:545–556<br />
Lechowicz MJ (1984) Why do temperate deciduous trees leaf out at different times? Adaptation<br />
and ecology <strong>of</strong> forest communities. American Naturalist 124:821–842<br />
Lechowicz MJ (2001) Phenology. In: Canadell J, Mooney HA (eds) Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong> global environmental<br />
change, vol 2. The earth system: biological and ecological dimensions <strong>of</strong> global<br />
environmental change. Wiley, London, pp 461–465<br />
Lee DW, O’Keefe J, Holbrook M, Field TS (2003) Pigment dynamics and autumn leaf senescence<br />
in a New England deciduous forest, eastern USA. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> 18:677–694<br />
Lei TT, Koike T (1998) Some observations <strong>of</strong> phenology and ecophysiology <strong>of</strong> Daphne kamtscatica<br />
Maxi var. jezoensis (Maxim.) Ohwi, a shade deciduous shrub, in the forest <strong>of</strong> northern Japan.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant <strong>Research</strong> 111:207–212<br />
Leopold AC, Kriedmann PE (1975) Plant growth and development. McGraw-Hill, New York<br />
Leuzinger S, Zotz G, Assh<strong>of</strong>f R, Körner C (2005) Responses <strong>of</strong> deciduous forest trees to severe<br />
drought in Central Europe. Tree Physiology 25:641–650<br />
Lewontin RC (1978) Fitness, survival and optimality. In: Horn DH, Mitchell R, Stairs GR (eds)<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus<br />
Lieth H (1974) Purposes <strong>of</strong> a phenology book. In: Lieth H (ed) Phenology and seasonality modeling.<br />
Chapman& Hall and Springer<br />
Lim PO, Kim HJ, Nam HG (2007) <strong>Leaf</strong> senescence. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Plant Biology<br />
58:115–136<br />
Lopez OR, Farris-Lopez K, Montgomery RA, Givnish TJ (2008) <strong>Leaf</strong> phenology in relation to<br />
canopy closure in southern Appalachian trees. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 95:1395–1407<br />
Loveless AR (1961) Nutritional interpretation <strong>of</strong> sclerophyllous based on differences in chemical<br />
composition <strong>of</strong> sclerophyllous and mesophytic leaves. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 25(98):168–184<br />
Lovelock CE, Kursar TA, Skillman JB, Winter K (1998) Photoinhibition in tropical forest understorey<br />
species with short- and long-lived leaves. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 12:553–560<br />
Lowman MD (1992) <strong>Leaf</strong> growth dynamics and herbivory in five species <strong>of</strong> Australian rain-forest<br />
canopy trees. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 80:433–447<br />
Lusk CH (2001) <strong>Leaf</strong> life spans <strong>of</strong> some conifers <strong>of</strong> the temperate forests <strong>of</strong> South America.<br />
Revista chilena de historia natural 74:711–718<br />
Lusk CH, Le-Quesne C (2000) Branch whorls <strong>of</strong> juvenile Araucaria araucana (Molina) Koch: are<br />
they formed annually? Revista chilena de historia natural 73:497–502<br />
Lusk CH, Onoda Y, Kooyman R, Gutierrets-Giron A (2010) Reconciling species-level vs plastic<br />
responses <strong>of</strong> evergreen leaf structure to light gradients:shade leaves punch above their weight.<br />
New Phytologist 186:429–438<br />
MacDonald AD, Mothersill DH (1983) Shoot development in Betula papyrifera. I. Short shoot<br />
organogenesis. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 61:3049–3065<br />
MacDonald AD, Mothersill DH, Caesar JC (1984) Shoot development in Betula payrifera. III.<br />
Long shoot organogenesis. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 62:437–445<br />
Mae T (2004) <strong>Leaf</strong> senescence and nitrogen metabolism. In: Nooden LD (ed) Plant cell death<br />
processes. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 157–168<br />
Maillette L (1987) Effects <strong>of</strong> bud demography and elongation patterns on Betula cordifolia near<br />
the tree line. <strong>Ecology</strong> 68:1251–1261<br />
Makino A, Mae T, Ohira K (1983) Photosynthesis and ribulose 1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase in<br />
rice leaves. Changes in photosynthesis and enzymes involved in carbon assimilation from leaf<br />
development through senescence. Plant Physiology 73:1002–1007<br />
Maksymowych R (1959) Quantitative analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf development in Xanthium pennsylvanicum.<br />
American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 46:635–644<br />
Maksymowych R (1973) Analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf development. Cambridge University Press, London, 109<br />
pages<br />
131
132 References<br />
Marini RP, Barden JA (1981) Seasonal correlations <strong>of</strong> specific leaf weight to net photosynthesis<br />
and dark respiration <strong>of</strong> apple leaves. Photosynthesis <strong>Research</strong> 2:251–258<br />
Marks PL (1975) On the relation between extension growth and successional status <strong>of</strong> deciduous<br />
trees <strong>of</strong> the northeastern United States. Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Torrey Botanical Club 102:172–177<br />
Marks CO, Lechowicz MJ (2006) Alternative designs and the evolution <strong>of</strong> functional diversity.<br />
American Naturalist 167:55–67<br />
Martin CE, Loeschen VS, Borchert R (1994) Photosynthesis and leaf longevity in trees <strong>of</strong> a tropical<br />
deciduous forest in Costa Rica. Photosynthetica 30:341–351<br />
Maruyama K (1978) Shoot elongation characteristics and phenological behavior <strong>of</strong> forest trees in<br />
natural beech forest. Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Niigata University Forests 11:1–30<br />
Matsuki S, Sano Y, Koike T (2004) Chemical and physical defence in early and late leaves in three<br />
heterophyllous birch species native to northern Japan. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 93:141–147<br />
Matsumoto Y (1984) Photosynthetic production in Abies veitchii advance growths growing under<br />
different light environmental conditions. II. Photosynthesis and respiration (in Japanese).<br />
Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Tokyo University Forests 73:229–252<br />
Mediavilla S, Escudero A (2003a) Photosynthetic capacity, integrated over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> a leaf, is<br />
predicted to be independent <strong>of</strong> leaf longevity in some tree species. New Phytologist 159:203–211<br />
Mediavilla S, Escudero A (2003b) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span differs from retention time <strong>of</strong> biomass and nutrients<br />
in the crowns <strong>of</strong> evergreen species. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 17:541–548<br />
Mediavilla S, Escudero A (2003c) Mature trees versus seedlings: differences in leaf traits and gas<br />
exchange patterns in three co-occurring Mediterranean oaks. Annals <strong>of</strong> Forest Science<br />
60:455–460<br />
Medvigy D, W<strong>of</strong>sy SC, Munger JW, Hollinger DY, Moorcr<strong>of</strong>t PR (2009) Mechanistic scaling <strong>of</strong><br />
ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: ecosystem demography model version 2.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Geophysical <strong>Research</strong> 114:G01002. doi:10.1029/2008JG000812<br />
Medway L (1972) Phenology <strong>of</strong> a tropical rain forest in Malaya. Biological Journal <strong>of</strong> Linnean<br />
Society 4:117–146<br />
Meinzer FC (2003) Functional convergence in plant responses to the environment. Oecologia<br />
134:1–11<br />
Melillo JM, McGuire AD, Kicklighter DW, Berrien M III, Vorosmarty CJ, Schloss AL (1993)<br />
Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363:234–240<br />
Merino J, Field C, Mooney HA (1982) Construction and maintenance costs <strong>of</strong> mediterraneanclimate<br />
evergreen and deciduous leaves. I. Growth and CO2 exchange analysis. Oecologia<br />
53:208–213<br />
Miyaji K, Tagawa H (1973) A life table <strong>of</strong> the leaves <strong>of</strong> Tilia japonica Simonkai (in Japanese).<br />
Contribution from Field Biology Laboratory <strong>of</strong> Ebino Heights 1:98–108<br />
Miyaji K, Tagawa H (1979) <strong>Longevity</strong> and productivity <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> a cultivated annual Glycine<br />
mas Merrill. I. <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> leaves in relation to density and sowing time. New Phytologist<br />
82:233–244<br />
Miyaji K, Da Silva WS, Alvim De Paulo T (1997) <strong>Longevity</strong> <strong>of</strong> leaves <strong>of</strong> a tropical tree,<br />
Theobroma cacao, grown under shading, in relation to position within the canopy and time <strong>of</strong><br />
emergence. New Phytologist 135:445–454<br />
Miyazawa Y, Kikuzawa K (2004) Phenology and photosynthetic traits <strong>of</strong> short shoots and long<br />
shoots in Betula grossa. Tree Physiology 24:631–637<br />
Miyazawa Y, Kikuzawa K (2006) Photosynthesis and physiological traits <strong>of</strong> evergreen broadleaved<br />
saplings during winter under different light environments in a temperate forest.<br />
Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 84:60–69<br />
Miyazawa S, Satomi S, Terashima I (1998) Slow leaf development <strong>of</strong> evergreen broad-leaved tree<br />
species in Japanese warm temperate forests. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 82:859–869<br />
Miyazawa Y, Suzuki M, Ishihara M, Fukumasu H, Kikuzawa K (2006) Comparison <strong>of</strong> physiology,<br />
morphology, and leaf demography between tropical pioneer saplings with different crown<br />
shapes. Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant <strong>Research</strong> 119:459–467<br />
Miyazawa Y, Kikuzawa K, Otsuki K (2007) Decrease in the capacity for RuBP carboxylation and<br />
regeneration with the progression <strong>of</strong> cold-induced photoinhibition during winter in evergreen<br />
broadleaf tree species in a temperate forest. Functional Plant Biology 34:393–401
References<br />
Mizobuchi T (1989) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span <strong>of</strong> Cinnamomum camphora and light environments (in<br />
Japanese). Kagawaseibutu 15–16:59–66<br />
Mommer L, Lenssen JPM, Huber H, Visser EJW, de Kroon H (2006) Ecophysiological determinants<br />
<strong>of</strong> plant performance under flooding: a comparative study <strong>of</strong> seven plant families.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 94:1117–1129<br />
Monk CD (1966) An ecological significance <strong>of</strong> evergreenness. <strong>Ecology</strong> 47:504–505<br />
Monsi M, Saeki T (1953) Uber den Lichtfackor in den Pflanzengesellschaften und seine<br />
Bedeutung fur die St<strong>of</strong>fproduktion. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 14:22–52<br />
Mooney HA, Dunn EL (1970a) Photosynthetic systems <strong>of</strong> Mediterranean-climate shrubs and trees<br />
<strong>of</strong> California and Chile. American Naturalist 104:447–453<br />
Mooney HA, Dunn EL (1970b) Convergent evolution <strong>of</strong> Mediterranean-climate evergreen sclerophyll<br />
shrubs. Evolution 24:292–303<br />
Mooney HA, Ehleringer JR (1997) Photosynthesis. In: Crawley MJ (ed) Plant ecology, 2nd edn.<br />
Blackwell, London, pp 1–27<br />
Mooney HA, Gulmon SL (1979) Environmental and evolutionary constraints on the photosynthetic<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> higher plants. In: Solbrig OT, Jain S, Johnson GB, Raven PH (eds)<br />
Topics in plant population biology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 1–42<br />
Mooney HA, Miller PC (1985) Chaparral. In: Chabot BF, Mooney HA (eds) Physiological ecology<br />
<strong>of</strong> North American plant communities. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 213–231<br />
Moore P (1980) The advantages <strong>of</strong> being evergreen. Nature 285:535<br />
Morisette JT, Richardson AD, Knapp AK, Fisher JI, Graham EA, Abatzoglou J, Wilson BE,<br />
Breshears DD, Henebry GM, Hanes JM, Liang L (2009) Tracking the rhythm <strong>of</strong> the seasons<br />
in the face <strong>of</strong> global change: phenological research in the 21st century. Frontiers in <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
and Environment 7:253–260<br />
Nam HG (1997) The molecular genetic analysis <strong>of</strong> leaf senescence. Current Opinion in<br />
Biotechnology 8:200–207<br />
Navas M-L, Ducour B, Roumer C, Richarte J, Garnier J, Garnier E (2003) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span, dynamics<br />
and construction cost <strong>of</strong> species from Mediterranean old-fields differing in successional status.<br />
New Phytologist 159:213–228<br />
Negi GCS (2006) <strong>Leaf</strong> and bud demography and shoot growth in evergreen and deciduous trees<br />
<strong>of</strong> central Himalaya, India. Trees 20:416–429<br />
Newcombe G, Chastagner GA (1993) A leaf rust epidemic <strong>of</strong> hybrid poplar along the lower<br />
Columbia River caused by Melampsora medusae. Plant Disease 77:528–531<br />
Niinemets Ü, Lukjanova A (2003) Total foliar area and average leaf age may be more strongly<br />
associated with branching frequency than with leaf longevity in temperate conifers. New<br />
Phytologist 158:75–89<br />
Niinemets U, Sack L (2004) Structural determinants <strong>of</strong> leaf light-harvesting capacity and photosynthetic<br />
potentials. Progress in Botany 67:385–419<br />
Niinemets U, Portsmuth A, Tobias M (2007a) <strong>Leaf</strong> shape and venation pattern alter the support<br />
investments within leaf lamina in temperate species: a neglected source <strong>of</strong> leaf physiological<br />
differentiation? Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 21:28–40<br />
Niinemets U, Portsmuth A, Tena D, Tobias M, Matesanz S, Valladares F (2007b) Do we underestimate<br />
the importance <strong>of</strong> leaf size in plant economics? Disproportional scaling <strong>of</strong> support costs<br />
within the spectrum <strong>of</strong> leaf physiognomy. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 100:283–303<br />
Nilsen ET (1986) Quantitative phenology and leaf survivorship <strong>of</strong> Rhododendron maximum in<br />
contrasting irradiance environments <strong>of</strong> the Southern Appalachian Mountains. American<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 73:822–831<br />
Nilsen ET, Sharifi MR, Rundel PW (1987) <strong>Leaf</strong> dynamics in an evergreen and a deciduous species with<br />
even-aged leaf cohorts, from different environments. American Midland Naturalist 118:46–55<br />
Nilsen ET, Stetler DA, Gassman CA (1988) Influence <strong>of</strong> age and microclimate on the photochemistry<br />
<strong>of</strong> Rhododendron maximum leaves II. Chloroplast structure and photosynthetic light<br />
response. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 75:1526–1534<br />
Nitta I, Ohsawa M (1997) <strong>Leaf</strong> dynamics and shoot phenology <strong>of</strong> eleven warm-temperate evergreen<br />
broad-leaved trees near their northern limit in central Japan. Plant <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
130:71–88<br />
133
134 References<br />
Nitta I, Ohsawa M (1998) Bud structure and shoot architecture <strong>of</strong> canopy and understorey evergreen<br />
broad-leaved trees at their northern limit in East Asia. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 81:115–129<br />
Nobel PS, Zaragoza LJ, Smith WK (1975) Relation between mesophyll surface area, photosynthetic<br />
rate, and illumination level during development for leaves <strong>of</strong> Plectranthus parviflorus<br />
Henckel. Plant Physiology 55:1067–1070<br />
Nooden LD (ed) (2004) Plant cell death processes. Elsevier/Academic, San Diego, 392 pages<br />
Nunez-Farfan J, Fornoni J, Valverde PL (2007) The evolution <strong>of</strong> resistance and tolerance to herbivores.<br />
Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong>, Evolution and Systematics 38:541–566<br />
Ohno K (1990) Some observations <strong>of</strong> deciduousness and evergreeness – with special attention to<br />
the variations within allied taxa (in Japanese). Phenological <strong>Research</strong> 16:2–3<br />
Oikawa S, Hikosaka K, Hirose T, Shiyomi M, Takahashie S, Hori Y (2004) Cost–benefit relationships<br />
in fronds emerging at different times in a deciduous fern, Pteridium aquilinum. Canadian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 82:521–527<br />
Oikawa S, Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2006) <strong>Leaf</strong> lifespan and lifetime carbon balance <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
leaves in a stand on an annual herb, Xanthium canadense. New Phytologist 172:104–116<br />
Oikawa S, Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2009) Does leaf shedding increase the whole-plant carbon gain<br />
despite some nitrogen being lost with shedding? New Phytologist 178:617–624<br />
Opler PA, Frankie GW, Baker HG (1980) Comparative phenological studies <strong>of</strong> treelet and shrub<br />
species in tropical wet and dry forests in the lowlands <strong>of</strong> Costa Rica. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
68:167–188<br />
Oren R, Schulze E-D, Matyssek R, Zimmermann R (1986) Estimating photosynthetic rate and annual<br />
carbon gain in conifers from specific leaf weight and leaf biomass. Oecologia 70:187–193<br />
Orians GH, Solbrig OT (1977) A cost-income model <strong>of</strong> leaves and roots with special reference to<br />
arid and semiarid areas. American Naturalist 111:677–690<br />
Osada N, Takeda H, Furukawa A, Awang M (2001) <strong>Leaf</strong> dynamics and maintenance <strong>of</strong> tree<br />
crowns in a Malaysian rain forest stand. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 89:774–782<br />
Osada N, Takeda H, Kitajima K, Pearcy RW (2003) Functional correlates <strong>of</strong> leaf demographic<br />
response to gap release in saplings <strong>of</strong> a shade-tolerant tree, Elateriospermum tapos. Oecologia<br />
137:181–187<br />
Osborne CP, Beerling DJ (2002) A process-based model <strong>of</strong> conifer forest structure and<br />
function with special emphasis on leaf lifespan. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16:1097,<br />
23 pages<br />
Oshima Y (1977) Litter fall. In: Kitazawa Y (ed) JIBP synthesis, vol 15. University <strong>of</strong> Tokyo<br />
Press, Tokyo, pp 127–129<br />
Ougham HJ, Morris P, Thomas H (2005) The colors <strong>of</strong> autumn leaves as symptoms <strong>of</strong> cellular<br />
recycling and defenses against environmental stresses. Current Topics in Developmental<br />
Biology 66:135–160<br />
Parmesan C (2006) <strong>Ecological</strong> and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong>, Evolution and Systematics 37:637–69<br />
Parolin P (2009) Submerged in darkness: adaptations to prolonged submergence by woody species<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Amazonian floodplains. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 103:359–376<br />
Parton W, Silver WL, Burke IC, Grassens L, Harmon ME, Currie WS, King JY, Adair EC, Brandt<br />
LA, Hart SC, Fasth B (2007) Global-scale similarities in nitrogen release patterns during longterm<br />
decomposition. Science 315:361–364<br />
Pease VA (1917) Duration <strong>of</strong> leaves in evergreens. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 4:145–160<br />
Penning de Vries FW, Brunsting AH, van Laar HH (1974) Products, requirements and efficiency<br />
<strong>of</strong> biosynthesis: a quantitative approach. Journal <strong>of</strong> Theoretical Biology 45:339–377<br />
Pietrini F, Iannelli MA, Massacci A (2002) Anthocyanin accumulation in the illuminated surface<br />
<strong>of</strong> maize leaves enhances protection from photo-inhibitory risks at low temperature, without<br />
further limitation to photosynthesis. Plant, Cell and Environment 25:1251–1259<br />
Poland JA, Balint-Kurti PJ, Wisser RJ, Pratt RC, Nelson RJ (2009) Shades <strong>of</strong> gray: the world <strong>of</strong><br />
quantitative disease resistance. Trends in Plant Science 14:21–29<br />
Pollard DFW (1970) <strong>Leaf</strong> area development on different shoot types in a young aspen stand and<br />
its effect upon production. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 48:1801–1804
References<br />
Poorter L, Bongers F (2006) <strong>Leaf</strong> traits are good predictors <strong>of</strong> plant performance across 53 rain<br />
forest species. <strong>Ecology</strong> 87:1733–1743<br />
Poorter H, Evans JR (1998) Photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency <strong>of</strong> species that differ inherently<br />
in specific leaf area. Oecologia 116:26–37<br />
Posada JM, Lechowicz MJ, Kitajima K (2009) Optimal photosynthetic use <strong>of</strong> light by tropical tree<br />
crowns achieved by adjustment <strong>of</strong> individual leaf angles and nitrogen content. Annals <strong>of</strong><br />
Botany 103:795–805<br />
Price CA, Enquist BJ (2007) Scaling mass and morphology in leaves: an extension <strong>of</strong> the WBE<br />
model. <strong>Ecology</strong> 88:1132–1141<br />
Quetier F, Thebault A, Lavorel S (2007) Plant traits in a state and transition framework as markers<br />
<strong>of</strong> ecosystem response to land-use change. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong> 77:33–52<br />
Reich PB (2001) Body size, geometry, longevity and metabolism: do plant leaves behave like<br />
animal bodies? Tree 16:674–680<br />
Reich PB, Uhl C, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1991) <strong>Leaf</strong> lifespan as a determinant <strong>of</strong> leaf structure<br />
and function among 23 tree species in Amazonian forest communities. Oecologia<br />
86:16–24<br />
Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1992) <strong>Leaf</strong> life-span in relation to leaf, plant and stand<br />
characteristics among diverse ecosystems. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong> 62:365–392<br />
Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS, Uhl C (1994) Photosynthesis–nitrogen relations in<br />
Amazonian tree species. I. Patterns among species and communities. Oecologia 97:62–72<br />
Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Modrzynski J, Tjoelker MG (1996) Evidence that longer needle retention <strong>of</strong><br />
spruce and pine populations at high elevations and high latitudes is largely a phenotypic<br />
response. Tree Physiology 16:643–647<br />
Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant<br />
functioning. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the National Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences <strong>of</strong> the United States <strong>of</strong> America<br />
94:13730–13734<br />
Reich PB, Ellsworth DS, Walters MB, Vose JM, Grewham C, Volin JC, Bowman WD (1999)<br />
Generality <strong>of</strong> leaf trait relationships: a test across six biomes. <strong>Ecology</strong> 80:1955–1969<br />
Reich PB, Uhl C, Walters MB, Prugh L, Ellsworth D (2004) <strong>Leaf</strong> demography and phenology in<br />
Amazonian rain forest: a census <strong>of</strong> 40 000 leaves <strong>of</strong> 23 tree species. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Monographs</strong><br />
74:3–23<br />
Reich PB, Falster DS, Ellsworth DS, Wright IJ, Westoby M, Oleksyn J, Lee TD (2009) Controls<br />
on declining carbon balance with leaf age among 10 woody species in Australian woodland:<br />
do leaves have zero daily net carbon balances when they die? New Phytologist 183:153–166<br />
Room PM, Maillette L, Hanan JS (1994) Module and metamer dynamics and virtual plants.<br />
Advances in <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> 25:105–155<br />
Rosati A, Dejong TM (2003) Estimating photosynthetic radiation use efficiency using incident<br />
light and photosynthesis <strong>of</strong> individual leaves. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 91:869–877<br />
Royer DL, Osborne CP, Beerling DL (2003) Carbon loss by deciduous trees in a CO 2 -rich ancient<br />
polar environment. Nature 424:60–62<br />
Royer DL, Osborne CP, Beerling DJ (2005) Contrasting seasonal patterns <strong>of</strong> carbon gain in evergreen<br />
and deciduous trees <strong>of</strong> ancient polar forests. Paleobiology 31:141–150<br />
Ryser P, Urbas P (2000) <strong>Ecological</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> leaf life span among Central European grass<br />
species. Oikos 91:41–50<br />
Saeki T (1959) Variation <strong>of</strong> photosynthetic activity with aging <strong>of</strong> leaves and total photosynthesis<br />
in a plant community. Botanical Magazine 72:404–408<br />
Saha S, BassiriRad H, Joseph G (2005) Phenology and water relations <strong>of</strong> tree sprouts and seedlings<br />
in a tropical deciduous forest <strong>of</strong> South India. Trees 19:322–325<br />
Sakai S (1987) Patterns <strong>of</strong> branching and extension growth <strong>of</strong> vigorous saplings <strong>of</strong> Japanese Acer<br />
species in relation to their regeneration strategies. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 65:1578–1585<br />
Sakai S (1990) The relationship between bud scale morphology and indeterminate and determinate<br />
growth patterns in Acer (Aceraceae). Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 68:144–148<br />
Sandquist DR, Ehleringer JR (1998) Intraspecific variation <strong>of</strong> dryout adaptation in brittlebush: leaf<br />
pubescence and timing <strong>of</strong> leaf loss vary with rainfall. Oecologia 113:162–169<br />
135
136 References<br />
Santiago LS, Wright SJ (2007) <strong>Leaf</strong> functional traits <strong>of</strong> tropical forest plants in relation to growth<br />
form. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 21:19–27<br />
Sato T, Sakai A (1980) Phenological study <strong>of</strong> the leaf <strong>of</strong> Pterophyta in Hokkaido. Japanese Journal<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 30:369–375<br />
Schimper AFW (1903) Plant geography on a physiological basis. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 839<br />
pages<br />
Schneider H, Schuettpelz E, Pryer KM, Cranfill R, Magallón S, Lupia R (2004) Ferns diversified<br />
in the shadow <strong>of</strong> angiosperms. Nature 428:553–557<br />
Schoettle AW (1990) The interaction between leaf longevity and shoot growth and foliar biomass<br />
per shoot in Pinus contorta at two elevations. Tree Physiology 7:209–214<br />
Seiwa K, Kikuzawa K (1989) Seasonal growth patterns <strong>of</strong> seedling height in relation to seed mass<br />
in deciduous broad-leaved tree species (in Japanese). Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 39:5–15<br />
Seiwa K, Kikuzawa K (1991) Phenology <strong>of</strong> tree seedlings in relation to seed size. Canadian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 69:532–538<br />
Seiwa K, Kikuzawa K (1996) Importance <strong>of</strong> seed size for establishment <strong>of</strong> seedlings <strong>of</strong> five<br />
deciduous broad-leaved tree species. Vegetatio 123:51–64<br />
Šesták Z (1981) <strong>Leaf</strong> ontogeny and photosynthesis. In: Johnson CB (ed) Physiological processes<br />
limiting plant growth. Butterworths Co, London, pp 147–158, 395<br />
Šesták Z, Čatský J, Jarvis PG (1971) Plant photosynthetic production: manual <strong>of</strong> methods. Dr W. Junk<br />
Publ, The Hague<br />
Shaver GR (1981) Mineral nutrition and leaf longevity in an evergreen shrub, Ledum palustre ssp.<br />
decumbens. Oecologia 49:362–365<br />
Shiodera S, Rahajoe JS, Kohyama T (2008) Variation in longevity and traits <strong>of</strong> leaves among<br />
co-occurring understorey plants in a tropical montane forest. Journal <strong>of</strong> Tropical <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
24:121–133<br />
Shipley B, Lechowicz MJ, Wright I, Reich PB (2006) Fundamental trade-<strong>of</strong>fs generating the<br />
worldwide leaf economics spectrum. <strong>Ecology</strong> 87:535–541<br />
Shirakawa H, Kikuzawa K (2009) Crown hollowing as a consequence <strong>of</strong> early shedding <strong>of</strong> leaves<br />
and shoots. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> 24:839–845<br />
Singh KP, Kushwaha CP (2005) Paradox <strong>of</strong> leaf phenology: Shorea robusta is a semi-evergreen<br />
species in tropical dry deciduous forests in India. Current Science 88:1820–1824<br />
Sitch S, Huntingford C, Gedney N, Levy PE, Lomas M, Piao SL, Betts R, Ciais P, Cox P,<br />
Friedlinstein P, Jones CD, Prentice IC, Woodward FI (2008) Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the terrestrial<br />
carbon cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five dynamic<br />
global vegetation models (DGVMs). Global Change Biology 14:2015–2039<br />
Sobrado MA (1991) Cost–benefit relationships in deciduous and evergreen leaves <strong>of</strong> tropical dry<br />
forest species. Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 5:608–616<br />
Southwood TRE, Brown VK, Reader PM (1986) <strong>Leaf</strong> palatability, life expectancy and herbivore<br />
damage. Oecologia 70:544–548<br />
Sprugel DG (1989) The relationship <strong>of</strong> evergreenness, crown architecture, and leaf size. American<br />
Naturalist 133:465–479<br />
Sprugel DG, Hinckley TM, Schaap W (1991) The theory and practice <strong>of</strong> branch autonomy.<br />
Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and Systematics 22:309–334<br />
Starr G, Oberbauer S (2003) Photosynthesis <strong>of</strong> arctic evergreens under snow: implications for<br />
tundra ecosystem carbon balance. <strong>Ecology</strong> 84:1415–1420<br />
Sterck FJ (1999) Crown development in tropical rain forest trees in gaps and understorey. Plant<br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> 143:89–98<br />
Stoll P, Schmid B (1998) Plant foraging and dynamic competition between branches <strong>of</strong> Pinus<br />
sylvestris in contrasting light environments. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 86:934–945<br />
Suarez N (2003) <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity, construction, and maintenance costs <strong>of</strong> three mangrove species<br />
under field conditions. Photosynthetica 41:373–381<br />
Suarez N, Medina E (2005) Salinity effect on plant growth and leaf demography <strong>of</strong> the mangrove,<br />
Avicennia germinans L. Trees – Structure and Function 19:721–727<br />
Suding KN, Goldstein LJ (2008) Testing the Holy Grail framework: using functional traits to<br />
predict ecosystem change. New Phytologist 180:559–562
References<br />
Suding KN, Lavorel S, Chapin FS III, Cornelissen JHC, Diáz S, Garnier E, Goldberg D, Hooper<br />
DU, Jackson ST, Navas M-L (2008) Scaling environmental change through the communitylevel:<br />
a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Global Change Biology<br />
14:1125–1140<br />
Sunose T, Yukawa J (1979) Interrelationship between the leaf longevity <strong>of</strong> the evergreen spindle<br />
tree, Euonymus japonicus Thunb. and the Euonymus gall midge, Masakimyia pustulae in different<br />
environments. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 29:29–34<br />
Sussex IM, Kerk NM (2001) The evolution <strong>of</strong> plant architecture. Current Opinion in Plant Biology<br />
4:33–37<br />
Suzuki A (2002) Influence <strong>of</strong> shoot architectural position on shoot growth and branching patterns<br />
in Cleyera japonica. Tree Physiology 22:885–890<br />
Sydes CL (1984) A comparative study <strong>of</strong> leaf demography in limestone grassland. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Ecology</strong> 72:331–345<br />
Tabor NJ, Poulsen CJ (2008) Palaeoclimate across the Late Pennsylvanian–Early Permian tropical<br />
palaeolatitudes: a review <strong>of</strong> climate indicators, their distribution, and relation to palaeophysiographic<br />
climate factors. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 268:293–310<br />
Tadaki Y (1965) Studies on production structure <strong>of</strong> forests 7. The primary production <strong>of</strong> a young<br />
stand <strong>of</strong> Castanopsis cuspidata. Japanese Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> 15:142–147<br />
Tadaki Y, Hachiya K (1968) Forest ecosystems and matter production. The Institute for Forest<br />
Science Developments, 64 pp<br />
Tadaki Y, Mori A, Mori S (1987) Primary productivity <strong>of</strong> a young alder stand (in Japanese).<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Japanese Forestry Society 69:207–214<br />
Taggart RE, Cross AT (2009) Global greenhouse to icehouse and back again: the origin and future<br />
<strong>of</strong> the boreal forest biome. Global and Planetary Change 65:115–121<br />
Takenaka A (1997) Structural variation in current-year shoots <strong>of</strong> broad-leaved evergreen tree<br />
saplings under forest canopies in warm temperate Japan. Tree Physiology 17:205–210<br />
Takenaka A (2000) Shoot growth responses to light microenvironment and correlative inhibition<br />
in tree seedlings under a forest canopy. Tree Physiology 20:987–991<br />
Takenaka A (2003) Formation and resource acquisition in trees (in Japanese). Seibutsu Kagaku<br />
54:131–138<br />
Takiya M, Umeki K, Kikuzawa K, Higashiura Y (2006) Effect <strong>of</strong> leaf biomass and phenological<br />
structure <strong>of</strong> the canopy on plot growth in a deciduous hardwood forest in northern Japan.<br />
Annals <strong>of</strong> Forest Science 63:725–732<br />
Tanner EVJ (1983) <strong>Leaf</strong> demography and growth <strong>of</strong> the tree-fern Cyathea pubescens Mett. ex<br />
Kuhn in Jamaica. Botanical Journal <strong>of</strong> the Linnean Society 87:213–227<br />
Taylor EL, Ryberg PE (2007) Tree growth at polar latitudes based on fossil tree ring analysis.<br />
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology 255:246–264<br />
Terashima I (2003) Photosynthesis by leaves (in Japanese). In: Muraoka Y, Kachi N (eds) Light,<br />
water and plant architecture. Bunichi Sogo Shuppan, Tokyo, pp 85–116<br />
Terazawa K, Kikuzawa K (1994) Effects <strong>of</strong> flooding on leaf dynamics and other seedling<br />
responses in flood-tolerant Alnus japonica and flood-intolerant Betula platyphylla var. japonica.<br />
Tree Physiology 14:251–261<br />
Tessier JT (2008) <strong>Leaf</strong> habit, phenology, and longevity <strong>of</strong> 11 forest understory plant species in<br />
Algonquin State Forest, northwest Connecticut, USA. Botany (formerly Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Botany) 86:457–465<br />
Thomas H (2002) Ageing in plants. Mechanisms <strong>of</strong> Ageing and Development 123:747–753<br />
Thomas H, Sadras VO (2001) The capture and gratuitous disposal <strong>of</strong> resources by plants.<br />
Functional <strong>Ecology</strong> 15:3–12<br />
Thomas H, Smart CM (1993) Crops that stay green. Annals <strong>of</strong> Applied Biology 123:193–219<br />
Tobin MF, Lopez OR, Kursar TA (1999) Responses <strong>of</strong> tropical understory plants to a severe<br />
drought: tolerance and avoidance <strong>of</strong> water stress. Biotropica 31:570–578<br />
Tomlinson PB (1986) The botany <strong>of</strong> mangroves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge<br />
Tsuchiya T (1989) Growth and biomass turnover <strong>of</strong> Hydrocharis dubia L. cultured under different<br />
nutrient conditions. <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Research</strong> 4:157–166<br />
Tsuchiya T (1991) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span <strong>of</strong> floating-leaved plants. Vegetatio 97:149–160<br />
137
138 References<br />
Tsuchiya T, Iwakuma T (1993) Growth and leaf life-span <strong>of</strong> a floating-leaved plant, Trapa natans<br />
L., as influenced by nitrogen flux. Aquatic Botany 46:317–324<br />
Tsuchiya T, Nohara S (1989) Growth and life span <strong>of</strong> the leaves <strong>of</strong> Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn. in<br />
lake Kasumigaura, Japan. Aquatic Botany 36:87–95<br />
Umeki K, Seino T (2003) Growth <strong>of</strong> first-order branches in Betula platyphylla saplings as related<br />
with the age, position, size, angle, and light availability <strong>of</strong> branches. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Forest <strong>Research</strong> 33:1276–1286<br />
Utescher T, Mosbrugger V (2007) Eocene vegetation patterns reconstructed from plant diversity –<br />
a global perspective. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 247:243–271<br />
Villar R, Merino J (2001) Comparison <strong>of</strong> leaf construction costs in woody species with differing<br />
leaf life-spans in contrasting ecosystems. New Phytologist 151:213–226<br />
Villar R, Robleto JR, De Jong Y, Poorter H (2006) Differences in construction costs and chemical<br />
composition between deciduous and evergreen woody species are small as compared to differences<br />
among families. Plant, Cell and Environment 29:1629–1643<br />
Vincent G (2006) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span plasticity in tropical seedlings grown under contrasting light<br />
regimes. Annals <strong>of</strong> Botany 97:245–255<br />
Vitousek P (1982) Nutrient cycling and nutrient use efficiency. American Naturalist 119:553–572<br />
Vitousek PM (1984) Litterfall nutrient cycling, and nutrient limitation in tropical forests. <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
65:285–298<br />
Walter H, Breckle S-W, Lawlor DW (2002) Walter’s vegetation <strong>of</strong> the earth: the ecological<br />
systems <strong>of</strong> the geo-biosphere. Springer, Berlin, 527 pages<br />
Warming E (1909) Oecology <strong>of</strong> plants. Clarendon, Oxford<br />
Warren CR (2006) Why does photosynthesis decrease with needle age in Pinus pinaster? Trees –<br />
Structure and Function 20:157–164<br />
Watson MA (1986) Integrated physiological units in plants. Trends in <strong>Ecology</strong> and Evolution<br />
1:119–123<br />
Weaver LM, Amasino RM (2001) Senescence is induced in individually darkened Arabidopsis<br />
leaves, but inhibited in whole darkened plants. Plant Physiology 127:876–886<br />
Weiher E, van der Werf A, Thompson K, Roderick M, Garnier E, Eriksson O (1999) Challenging<br />
Theophrastus: a common core list <strong>of</strong> plant traits for functional ecology. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vegetation<br />
Science 10:609–620<br />
West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (1997) A general model for the origin <strong>of</strong> allometric scaling laws<br />
in biology. Science 276:122–126<br />
Westoby M (1998) A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant and Soil<br />
199:213–227<br />
Westoby M, Warton D, Reich PB (2000) The time value <strong>of</strong> leaf area. American Naturalist<br />
155:649–656<br />
Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ (2002) Plant ecological strategies: some<br />
leading dimensions <strong>of</strong> variation between species. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and Systematics<br />
33:125–159<br />
White J (1979) The plant as a metapopulation. Annual Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong> and Systematics<br />
10:109–145<br />
Whitmore TC (1990) An introduction to tropical rain forest. Oxford University Press, Oxford<br />
Whittaker RH (1962) Classification <strong>of</strong> natural communities. Botanical Review 28:1–239<br />
Wilkinson DM, Sherratt TN, Phillip DM, Wrattern SD, Dixon AFG, Young AJ (2002) The adaptive<br />
significance <strong>of</strong> autumn leaf colours. Oikos 99:402–407<br />
Williams AG, Whitham TG (1986) Premature leaf abscission: an induced plant defense against<br />
gall aphids. <strong>Ecology</strong> 67:1619–1627<br />
Williams K, Field CB, Mooney HA (1989) Relationships among leaf construction cost, leaf longevity,<br />
and light environment in rain-forest plants <strong>of</strong> the genus Piper. American Naturalist 133:198–211<br />
Williams LJ, Bunyavejchewin S, Baker PJ (2008) Deciduousness in a seasonal tropical forest in<br />
western Thailand: interannual and intraspecific variation in timing, duration and environmental<br />
cues. Oecologia 155:571–582
References<br />
Woodward FI, Lomas MR, Kelly CK (2004) Global climate and the distribution <strong>of</strong> plant biomes.<br />
Philosophical Transactions <strong>of</strong> the Royal Society <strong>of</strong> London, Series B 359:1465–1476<br />
Worrall J (1999) Phenology and the changing seasons. Nature 399:101<br />
Wright IJ, Westoby M (2002) Leaves at low versus high rainfall: coordination <strong>of</strong> structure,<br />
lifespan and physiology. New Phytologist 155:403–416<br />
Wright IJ, Westoby M, Reich P (2002) Convergence towards higher leaf mass per area in dry and<br />
nutrient-poor habitats has different consequences for leaf life span. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecology</strong><br />
90:534–543<br />
Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin FS,<br />
Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont<br />
BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas M-L, Niinemets Ü, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter<br />
H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R<br />
(2004) The world-wide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827<br />
Wright IJ, Reich PB, Cornelissen JHC, Falster DS, Groom PK, Hikosaka K, Lee W, Lusk CH,<br />
Niinemets U, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Warton DI, Westoby M (2005a) Modulation <strong>of</strong><br />
leaf economic traits and trait relationships by climate. Global <strong>Ecology</strong> and Biogeography<br />
14:411–421<br />
Wright IJ, Reich PB, Cornelissen JHC, Falster DS, Garnier E, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee W,<br />
Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Villar R, Warton DI, Westoby M (2005b) Assessing the generality<br />
<strong>of</strong> global leaf trait relationships. New Phytologist 166:485–496<br />
Xiao Y (2003) Variation in needle longevity <strong>of</strong> Pinus tabulaeformis forests at different geographic<br />
scales. Tree Physiology 23:463–471<br />
Yagi T (2000) Morphology and biomass allocation <strong>of</strong> current-year shoots <strong>of</strong> ten tall tree species<br />
in cool temperate Japan. Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant <strong>Research</strong> 113:171–183<br />
Yagi T, Kikuzawa K (1999) Patterns in size-related variations in current-year shoot structure in<br />
eight deciduous tree species. Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant <strong>Research</strong> 112:343–352<br />
Yamamoto I (1994) <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity and photosynthesis in submerged plants (in Japanese). Faculty<br />
<strong>of</strong> Science, Chiba University<br />
Yoshida C, Takasu H (1993) <strong>Leaf</strong> life-span in some ferns <strong>of</strong> the Kii Peninsula 1. Acta<br />
Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 44:59–66<br />
Yoshie F, Yoshida S (1989) Wintering forms <strong>of</strong> perennial herbs in the cool temperate regions <strong>of</strong><br />
Japan. Canadian Journal <strong>of</strong> Botany 67:3563–3569<br />
Yuan ZY, Chen HYH (2009) Global-scale patterns <strong>of</strong> nutrient resorption associated with latitude,<br />
temperature and precipitation. Global <strong>Ecology</strong> and Biogeography 18:11–18<br />
Yukawa J, Tsuda K (1986) <strong>Leaf</strong> longevity <strong>of</strong> Quercus glauca Thunb., with reference to the influence<br />
<strong>of</strong> gall formation by Contarinia sp. (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) on the early mortality <strong>of</strong><br />
fresh leaves. Memoirs <strong>of</strong> the Faculty <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Kagoshima University 22:73–77<br />
Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K (2001) Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in<br />
global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292:686–693<br />
Zhang JL, Zhu JJ, Cao KF (2007) Seasonal variation in photosynthesis in six woody species with<br />
different leaf phenology in a valley savanna in southwestern China. Trees 21:631–643<br />
Zhang L, Luo T, Zhu H, Daly C, Deng K (2009) <strong>Leaf</strong> life span as a simple predictor <strong>of</strong> evergreen<br />
forest zonation in China. Journal <strong>of</strong> Biogeography 37:27–36<br />
Zots G, Winter K (1994) Photosynthesis <strong>of</strong> a tropical canopy tree, Ceiba pentandra, in a lowland<br />
forest in Panama. Tree Physiology 14:1291–1301<br />
Zots G, Winter K (1996) Diel patterns <strong>of</strong> CO 2 exchange in rainforest canopy plants. In: Mulkey<br />
SS, Chazdon RL, Smith AP (eds) Tropical forest plant ecophysiology. Chapman and Hall,<br />
New York, pp 89–113<br />
Zots G, Harris G, Koniger M, Winter K (1995) High rate <strong>of</strong> photosynthesis in the tropical pioneer<br />
tree, Ficus insipida Willd. Flora 190:265–272<br />
139
Subject Index<br />
A<br />
Abscission, 21<br />
Adaptive radiation, 59<br />
Alkaloids, 55<br />
Allometric relationships, 33<br />
Anthocyanins, 21<br />
Apparency<br />
to herbivores, 55<br />
theory, 118<br />
Aquatic plants, 54<br />
Autonomous unit, 85<br />
B<br />
Branch whorl, 31<br />
Bud<br />
apical, 9<br />
burst, 9<br />
hypsophyllary, 13<br />
lateral, 9<br />
naked, 13<br />
scale, 9, 10, 13<br />
scale development, 13<br />
timing <strong>of</strong> budbreak, 14<br />
C<br />
Canopy<br />
architecture, 2<br />
ergodic hypothesis, 51<br />
hollowing phenomenon, 82<br />
photosynthesis model, 50<br />
structure, 2<br />
Coloring, 21<br />
Construction cost, 6<br />
leaf, 38, 42, 68<br />
Cost-benefit ratio, 42<br />
Crown, 2<br />
hollowing, 82<br />
D<br />
Deciduous, 2<br />
brevideciduous, 3<br />
drought, 3, 90<br />
habit, 101<br />
incomplete deciduousness, 3<br />
semideciduous, 3<br />
Defense, 117<br />
biological, 55<br />
chemical, 55<br />
constitutive, 95<br />
induced, 95<br />
induced chemical, 55<br />
physical, 54<br />
plant defenses, 54<br />
Delayed greening, 49<br />
Density dependence, 92<br />
density-dependent mortality factor, 95<br />
Depression effect, 17<br />
Diel effect, 17<br />
Disturbance, 88<br />
Dynamic global vegetation models<br />
(DGVMs), 108<br />
E<br />
Early, mid and late successional species, 15<br />
Ecosystem, 107<br />
level, 110<br />
Efficiency, 112<br />
Endogenous factors, 21<br />
Even-aged cohort, 29<br />
Evergreen<br />
broad-leaved tree species, 13<br />
habit, 101<br />
plant species, 2, 59<br />
semievergreen, 3, 59<br />
Evolution, vii<br />
Exogenous factors, 21<br />
141
142 Subject Index<br />
F<br />
Fagus type, 9<br />
Ferns, 59<br />
Flooding, 97<br />
G<br />
Geographic distribution, 102<br />
Geography <strong>of</strong> foliar habit, 102<br />
Greenhouse, 101<br />
greenhouse Earth, 8<br />
Gross primary production (GPP), ix, 36, 37<br />
Growth rate hypothesis, 93<br />
H<br />
Herbivore, 95<br />
herbivory, 54, 117<br />
satiate herbivores, 55<br />
Heteronomous, 11<br />
Heterophylly, 25<br />
Heteroptosis, 3<br />
Homonomous, 11<br />
I<br />
Icehouse, 101<br />
Intrinsic rate <strong>of</strong> population growth, 48<br />
Isometric relationship, 33<br />
L<br />
LAI<br />
optimum leaf area index, 50<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong>, 7<br />
abscission, 24<br />
construction cost, 38, 42, 68<br />
decomposition rate <strong>of</strong> the fallen, 114<br />
dry matter content LDMC, 68, 75<br />
economic spectrum, 68<br />
embryonic, 9<br />
lamina, 9<br />
mesophyllic leaves, 6<br />
primordia, 9<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> emergence<br />
duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong>, 27<br />
flush type, 9<br />
period, 62<br />
simultaneous-type, 82<br />
successive type, 82<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> exchanger, 2<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> expansion<br />
duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong>, 14<br />
full expansion, 14<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong>fall<br />
duration <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong>, 27<br />
period, 62<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> half-life, 29, 31<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> lifespan, 23<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> longevity, 23<br />
cohort-based estimates <strong>of</strong>, 30<br />
functional, 35, 36<br />
potential, 43<br />
theory for, 43, 76, 102, 116<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> mass per unit area (LMA), 42, 68<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> senescence, 21<br />
senescence-associated genes, 21<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> survival curve, 25<br />
l x curve, 30<br />
survivorship curve, 29<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> traps, 34<br />
<strong>Leaf</strong> turnover rate, 34<br />
Litter traps, 34<br />
M<br />
Macrophylls, 8<br />
Mangroves, 63, 95, 96<br />
Marcesence, 24<br />
Marginal gain, 43<br />
Mean labor time, 17<br />
Mean retention time <strong>of</strong> biomass in canopy,<br />
110–111<br />
Metamer, 8<br />
Microphylls, 8<br />
Modular unit, 8, 25<br />
N<br />
Natural selection, vii<br />
Net ecosystem production (NEP), ix<br />
Net primary production (NPP), ix, 33<br />
Nitrogen<br />
absolute amount <strong>of</strong> resorbed, 114<br />
foliar nitrogen (content), 52, 68, 70, 72, 115<br />
latitudinal trends <strong>of</strong> NRE, 113<br />
mean residence time <strong>of</strong> nitrogen<br />
MRT, 115<br />
productivity NP, 115<br />
resorption efficiency, 112<br />
use efficiency <strong>of</strong> an individual plant<br />
(NUE), 115<br />
Nutrient turnover rate, 115<br />
O<br />
Overcast effect, 17<br />
Ozone-induced oxidative stress, 96
Subject Index<br />
P<br />
Pathogen, 95<br />
Phenolics, 55<br />
Phenology, vii<br />
foliar, 59<br />
Phosphorus<br />
latitudinal trends <strong>of</strong> PRE, 113<br />
phosphorus resorption efficiency (PRE), 112<br />
Photosnthesis<br />
light-response curves, 15<br />
Photosynthetic capacity, 14, 68<br />
daily, 72<br />
decline with leaf age, 19, 46<br />
maximum photosynthetic<br />
capacity, 16<br />
Photosynthetic function<br />
onset <strong>of</strong> full, 24<br />
photoinhibition, 35<br />
Photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency<br />
(PNUE), 76, 115<br />
Photosynthetic rate<br />
at leaf death, 48<br />
midday depression <strong>of</strong>, 16<br />
response to irradiance, 14<br />
Plant canopy, 2<br />
Plastochron interval, 78, 79<br />
R<br />
Relative growth rate, 79<br />
Resorption <strong>of</strong> nutrient, 111<br />
potential resorption, 111<br />
realized resorption, 111<br />
resorption pr<strong>of</strong>iciency, 112<br />
Resource availability theory, 118<br />
Rhyniophyta, 7<br />
S<br />
Salinity, 96<br />
Sclerophylly, 4<br />
sclerophylls, 6<br />
Seasonality, viii<br />
Seasonal climatic changes, vii<br />
Shade<br />
deeply shaded, 84<br />
partially shaded, 84<br />
self-shading, 46, 82<br />
shading effect, 17<br />
Shoot, 8<br />
determinate shoot growth, 10, 77<br />
embryonic, 11<br />
indeterminate shoot growth, 10, 77<br />
long shoot, 11, 83<br />
preformed, 11<br />
seedling shoot growth, 80<br />
short shoot, 11, 83<br />
Snow-free period, 35, 107<br />
Specific leaf area (SLA), 69<br />
Specific leaf weight (SLW), 69<br />
Spring ephemeral, 3<br />
Standing leaf biomass, 34<br />
Static life table analyses, 31<br />
Steady-state leaf numbers, 34<br />
Succeeding-type, 10<br />
Succession<br />
early successional plant<br />
species, 88<br />
early successional species, 80<br />
late successional plant species, 88<br />
late successional species, 80<br />
Summergreen, 2, 3, 59, 63<br />
T<br />
Terrestrial plants, 54<br />
Trade-<strong>of</strong>fs, 33<br />
Turnover<br />
in the canopy, 52<br />
leaf, 25<br />
optimal timing <strong>of</strong>, 44<br />
U<br />
Unfavorable season, 35<br />
V<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> a leaf, 49<br />
W<br />
Wintergreen, 2, 3, 59<br />
Wood density, 80<br />
143
Organism Index<br />
A<br />
Abies balsamea, 61<br />
Abies firma, 60<br />
Abies grandis, 92<br />
Abies mariesii, 61<br />
Abies veitchii, 14, 61<br />
Acer mono, 20<br />
Acer palmatum, 69, 70<br />
Actias selene gnoma, 94<br />
Actinidia deliciosa, 15<br />
Adenostoma fasciculatum, 81<br />
Aesculus flava, 63<br />
Aesculus sylvatica, 3<br />
Aesculus turbinata, 80<br />
Akebia trifolia, 81<br />
Alnus hirsuta, 9, 11, 20, 26, 63, 78, 82<br />
Alnus japonica, 34, 41, 97, 104<br />
Alnus sieboldiana, 17, 20, 82<br />
Ambrosia trifida, 64<br />
Annona spraguei, 15<br />
Araucaria araucana, 31, 61<br />
Archaeopteris, 8<br />
Asplenium incisum, 59<br />
Asplenium wrightii, 60<br />
Athyrium brevifrons, 60<br />
Athyrium otophorum, 60<br />
Athyrium pycnosorum, 60<br />
Athyrium wardii, 60<br />
Avicennia alba, 96<br />
Avicennia germinans, 63, 96<br />
B<br />
Betula grossa, 81<br />
Betula platyphylla, 20, 80, 82, 97<br />
Blechnum niponicum, 59, 60<br />
Brasenia schreberi, 64<br />
Brassica napus, 15<br />
C<br />
Camellia japonica, 35, 77<br />
Carpinus caroliniana, 4<br />
Carpinus cordata, 78<br />
Carya cordiformis, 63<br />
Castanopsis cuspidata, 13, 62<br />
Castanopsis sieboldii, 15<br />
Ceratopetalum apetalum, 78<br />
Cercidiphyllum japonicum, 25<br />
Cettia diphone, viii<br />
Cinnamomum camphora, 85<br />
Cinnamomum japonicum, 85<br />
Cinnamomum sintoc, 63<br />
Cleyera japonica, 13, 83<br />
Cleyera ochnacea, 62<br />
Cochlospermum fraseri, 36<br />
C<strong>of</strong>fea arabica, 15<br />
Coniogromme japonica var. fauriei, 60<br />
Connarus panamensis, 15<br />
Cornopteris decurrenti-alata, 60<br />
Cryptantha flava, 91<br />
Cryptocarya obliqua, 63<br />
Cucumis sativus, 15<br />
Cyathea arborea, 57<br />
Cyathea furfuraca, 59<br />
Cyathea hornei, 59<br />
Cyathea pubescens, 59<br />
Cyathea woodwardioides, 59<br />
D<br />
Daphne kamtschatica, 63<br />
Daphniphyllum macropodum, 89<br />
Dendrocnide excelsa, 78<br />
Desmopsis panamensis, 15<br />
Dipterocarpus sublamellatus, 85<br />
Dipteronia, 11<br />
Doryopteris lacera, 60<br />
145
146 Organism Index<br />
Doryopteris polylepis, 60<br />
Doryphora sassafras, 78<br />
Dryopteris crassirhizoma, 59<br />
Dryopteris phegopteris, 60<br />
Duabanga sonneratioides, 104<br />
E<br />
Elateriospermum tapos, 85, 89<br />
Encelia farinosa, 91<br />
Erythrophleum chlorostachys, 36<br />
Eucalyptus miniata, 36<br />
Eucalyptus tetrodonta, 36<br />
Eurya japonica, 13, 62<br />
F<br />
Fagus crenata, 63, 78, 82<br />
Ficus elastica, 104<br />
Fragaria virginiana, 81<br />
G<br />
Glossopteris, 8<br />
Glycine max, 64<br />
H<br />
Halimium atriplicifolium, 81<br />
Helianthus tuberosus, 71<br />
Heliocarpus appendiculatus, 20, 78<br />
Homolanthus caloneurus, 63<br />
Hydrocharis morus-ranae var.<br />
asiatica, 92<br />
I<br />
Ilex aquifolium, 62<br />
Illicium religiosum, 62<br />
Inga edulis, 63<br />
L<br />
Laguncularia racemosa, 63<br />
Larix decidua, 61<br />
Larrea tridentata, 92<br />
Ledum palustre var. decumbens, 92<br />
Lepisorus ussuriensis, 59<br />
Leptopteris wilkesiana, 59<br />
Ligustrum obtusifolium, 89<br />
Linum usitatissimum, 64<br />
M<br />
Machilus thunbergii, 13, 15, 62<br />
Maesa japonica, 13<br />
Magnolia obovata, 26<br />
Mallotus japonicus, 104<br />
Melampsora medusae, 95<br />
Metrosideros polymorpha, 92<br />
Microlepia marginata, 60<br />
Morisonia americana, 15<br />
Myriophyllum spicatum, 65<br />
N<br />
Nelumbo nucifera, 64, 65<br />
Noth<strong>of</strong>agus moorei, 78<br />
Nymphaea odorata, 64<br />
Nymphaea tetragona, 64<br />
O<br />
Osmanthus chinensis, 32<br />
Ouratea lucens, 15<br />
P<br />
Pachysandra terminalis, 89<br />
Pemphigus betae, 95<br />
Phaseolus vulgaris, 31<br />
Phlomis fruticosa, 16<br />
Phyllitis scolopendrium, 59<br />
Phyllodoce aleutica, 106<br />
Picea abies, 61, 92<br />
Picea glehnii, 92<br />
Picea jezoensis, 92<br />
Picea mariana, 61<br />
Pieris rapae, viii<br />
Pinus contorta, 61<br />
Pinus longaeva, 61<br />
Pinus pumila, 15<br />
Pinus resinosa, 61<br />
Pinus sylvestris, 61<br />
Pinus tabulaeformis, 30, 61<br />
Pinus taeda, 61<br />
Piper, 41, 42<br />
Pistacia lentiscus, 91<br />
Podocarpus nubigena, 61<br />
Podocarpus saligna, 61<br />
Polygonatum odoratum, 20<br />
Polygonum sachalinensis, 20<br />
Polypodium japonicum, 60<br />
Polystichum retroso-paleoceum, 60
Organism Index<br />
Polystichum tripteron, 59, 60<br />
Populus maximowiczii, 69, 70<br />
Potamogeton crispus, 65<br />
Pseudotsuga menziesii var.<br />
glauca, 92<br />
Psychotria emetica, 63<br />
Psychotria limonensis, 63<br />
Pteridium aquilinum, 42<br />
Pyrrosia tricuspis, 59<br />
Q<br />
Quercus acuta, 13<br />
Quercus coccifera, 62<br />
Quercus crispula, 63, 78, 82<br />
Quercus glauca, 15<br />
Quercus mongolica var.<br />
grosseserrata, 26<br />
Quercus myrsinaefolia, 62<br />
Quercus rotundifolia, 62<br />
Quercus rubra, 15<br />
Quercus suber, 62<br />
R<br />
Rhizophora mangle, 63<br />
Rhododendrom maximum, 89, 90<br />
Rhododendron aureum, 106<br />
Rumohr standishii, 60<br />
S<br />
Saxegothaea conspicua, 61<br />
Scepteridium multifidum var. robustum, 60<br />
Shorea robusta, 4<br />
Sieversia pentapetala, 106<br />
Sonneratia alba, 96<br />
Symplocos prunifolia, 62<br />
T<br />
Terminalia ferdinandiana, 36<br />
Theobroma cacao, 15, 85<br />
Tilia japonica, 82, 84<br />
Trema orientalis, 104<br />
U<br />
Ulmus davidiana, 11<br />
W<br />
Welwitschia, 14<br />
X<br />
Xanthium canadense, 64, 85<br />
Xanthophyllum stipitatum, 85<br />
Xylocarpus granatum, 96<br />
Xylopia micrantha, 15<br />
147