Abstract
Leaf architecture, stand leaf area index and canopy light interception were studied in 13 poplar clones growing in a second rotation of a coppice plantation, to determine the role of leaf architectural attributes on canopy light-harvesting efficiency and to assess biomass investment in leaf support tissue. Stand leaf area index (L) varied from 2.89 to 6.99, but L was only weakly associated with canopy transmittance (TC). The weak relationship between TC and L was a result of a higher degree of foliage aggregation at larger values of L, leading to lower light-interception efficiency in stands with greater total leaf area. We observed a strong increase in leaf aggregation and a decrease in light-harvesting efficiency with decreasing mean leaf petiole length (PL) but not with leaf size, possibly because, in cordate or deltoid poplar leaves, most of the leaf area is located close to the petiole attachment to the lamina. Although PL was the key leaf characteristic of light-harvesting efficiency, clones with longer petioles had larger biomass investments in petioles, and there was a negative relationship between PL and L, demonstrating that enhanced light harvesting may lead to an overall decline in photosynthesizing leaf surface. Upper-canopy leaves were generally larger and had greater dry mass (MA) and nitrogen per unit area (NA) than lower-canopy leaves. Canopy plasticity in MA and NA was higher in clones with higher foliar biomass investment in midrib, and lower in clones with relatively longer petioles. These relationships suggest that there is a trade-off between photosynthetic plasticity and biomass investment in support, and also that high light-harvesting efficiency may be associated with lower photosynthetic plasticity. Our results demonstrate important clonal differences in leaf aggregation that are linked to leaf structure and biomass allocation patterns within the leaf.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Stand leaf area index ranged from 2.89 to 6.99.
PopulusOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stand leaf area index (L) varied from 2.89 to 6.99”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area index was only weakly associated with canopy transmittance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“L was only weakly associated with canopy transmittance (TC)”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
e1“Stand leaf area index (L) varied from 2.89 to 6.99”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher leaf area index corresponded to more foliage aggregation and lower light-interception efficiency.
- Outcome
- light-interception efficiencye0
- Qualifier
- higher degree of foliage aggregation at larger values of Le0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a higher degree of foliage aggregation at larger values of L, leading to lower light-interception efficiency in stands with greater total leaf area”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Shorter mean petiole length was associated with greater leaf aggregation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a strong increase in leaf aggregation and a decrease in light-harvesting efficiency with decreasing mean leaf petiole length (PL)”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Shorter mean petiole length was associated with lower light-harvesting efficiency.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a strong increase in leaf aggregation and a decrease in light-harvesting efficiency with decreasing mean leaf petiole length (PL)”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf size was not associated with light-harvesting efficiency in the reported comparison.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but not with leaf size”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
e1“a strong increase in leaf aggregation and a decrease in light-harvesting efficiency with decreasing mean leaf petiole length (PL)”
Claim · model-written summary
Clones with longer petioles invested more biomass in petioles.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“clones with longer petioles had larger biomass investments in petioles”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Petiole length was negatively related to leaf area index.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was a negative relationship between PL and L”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Upper-canopy leaves were larger than lower-canopy leaves.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Upper-canopy leaves were generally larger and had greater dry mass (MA) and nitrogen per unit area (NA) than lower-canopy leaves”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Upper-canopy leaves had greater dry mass and nitrogen per unit area than lower-canopy leaves.
- Organ / stage
- Upper-canopy leavese0
- Outcome
- dry mass (MA) and nitrogen per unit area (NA)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- lower-canopy leavese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Upper-canopy leaves were generally larger and had greater dry mass (MA) and nitrogen per unit area (NA) than lower-canopy leaves”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy plasticity in dry mass and nitrogen per area was greater in clones with greater midrib biomass investment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Canopy plasticity in MA and NA was higher in clones with higher foliar biomass investment in midrib”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy plasticity in dry mass and nitrogen per area was lower in clones with relatively longer petioles.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower in clones with relatively longer petioles”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”
e1“Canopy plasticity in MA and NA was higher in clones with higher foliar biomass investment in midrib”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer a trade-off between photosynthetic plasticity and support biomass investment.
- Outcome
- trade-off between photosynthetic plasticity and biomass investment in supporte0
- Qualifier
- photosynthetic plasticitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there is a trade-off between photosynthetic plasticity and biomass investment in support”
t0“poplar”
t1“Petiole length and biomass investment in support modify light interception efficiency in dense poplar plantations”