Corner’s rules pass the test of time: little effect of phenology on leaf–shoot and other scaling relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Twig cross-sectional area and the surface area of leaves borne on it are expected to be isometrically correlated across species (Corner's rules). However, how stable this relationship remains in time is not known. We studied inter- and intraspecific twig leaf area-cross-sectional area (la-cs) and other scaling relationships, including the leaf-shoot mass (lm-sm) scaling relationship, across a complete growing season. We also examined the influence of plant height, deciduousness and the inclusion of reproductive buds on the stability of the scaling relationships, and we discuss results from a functional perspective. METHODS: We collected weekly current-year twigs of six Patagonian woody species that differed in growth form and foliar habit. We also used prominent inflorescences from Embothrium coccineum (Proteaceae) to assess whether reproductive buds alter the la-cs isometric relationship. Mixed effects models were fitted to obtain parameter estimates and to test whether interaction terms were non-significant (invariant) for the scaling relationships. KEY RESULTS: The slope of the la-cs scaling relationship remained invariant across the growing season. Two species showed contrasting and disproportional (allometric) la-cs scaling relationships (slope ≠ 1). Scaling relationships varied significantly across growth form and foliar habit. The lm-sm scaling relationship differed between reproductive- and vegetative-origin twigs in E. coccineum, which was explained by a significantly lower leaf mass per area in the former. CONCLUSIONS: Although phenology during the growing season appeared not to change leaf-shoot scaling relationships across species, we show that scaling relationships departed from the general trend of isometry as a result of within-species variation, growth form, foliar habit and the type of twig. The identification of these functional factors helps to understand variation in the general trend of Corner's rules.
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".