The leaf size/number trade-off in herbaceous angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined the extent to which between-species leaf size variation relates to variation in the intensity of leaf production in herbaceous angiosperms. Leaf size variation has been most commonly interpreted in terms of biomechanical constraints (e.g. affected by plant size limitations) or in terms of direct adaptation associated with leaf size effects in optimizing important physiological functions of individual leaves along environmental gradients (e.g. involving temperature and moisture). An additional interpretation is explored here, where adaptation may be more directly associated with the number of leaves produced and where relatively small leaf size then results as a trade-off of high ‘leafing intensity’—i.e. number of leaves produced per unit plant body size. The relationships between mean individual leaf mass, number of leaves and plant body size were examined for 127 species of herbaceous angiosperms collected from natural populations in southern Ontario, Canada. In all, 88% of the variation in mean individual leaf mass across species, spanning four orders of magnitude, is accounted for by a negative isometric (proportional) trade-off relationship with leafing intensity. These results parallel those reported in recent studies of woody species. Because each leaf is normally associated with an axillary bud or meristem, having a high leafing intensity is equivalent to having a greater number of meristems per unit body size—i.e. a larger ‘bud bank’. According to the ‘leafing intensity premium’ hypothesis, because an axillary meristem represents the potential to produce either a new shoot or a reproductive structure, high leafing intensity should confer greater architectural and/or reproductive plasticity (with relatively small leaf size required as a trade-off). This greater plasticity, we suggest, should be especially important for smaller species since they are likely to suffer greater suppression of growth and reproduction from competition within multi-species vegetation. Accordingly, we tested and found support for the prediction that smaller species have not just smaller leaves generally but also higher leafing intensities, thus conferring larger bud banks, i.e. more meristems per unit plant body size.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".