Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species

Autores
Vaieretti, Maria Victoria; Díaz, Sandra Myrna; Vile, Denis; Garnier, Eric
Año de publicación
2007
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Background and Aims Leaf dry matter content (LDMC) is widely used as an indicator of plant resource use in plant functional trait databases. Two main methods have been proposed to measure LDMC, which basically differ in the rehydration procedure to which leaves are subjected after harvesting. These are the ‘complete rehydration’ protocol of Garnier et al. (2001, Functional Ecology 15: 688–695) and the ‘partial rehydration’ protocol of Vendramini et al. (2002, New Phytologist 154: 147–157). † Methods To test differences in LDMC due to the use of different methods, LDMC was measured on 51 native and cultivated species representing a wide range of plant families and growth forms from central-western Argentina, following the complete rehydration and partial rehydration protocols. †Key Results and Conclusions The LDMC values obtained by both methods were strongly and positively correlated, clearly showing that LDMC is highly conserved between the two procedures. These trends were not altered by the exclusion of plants with non-laminar leaves. Although the complete rehydration method is the safest to measure LDMC, the partial rehydration procedure produces similar results and is faster. It therefore appears as an acceptable option for those situations in which the complete rehydration method cannot be applied. Two notes of caution are given for cases in which different datasets are compared or combined: (1) the discrepancy between the two rehydration protocols is greatest in the case of high-LDMC (succulent or tender) leaves; (2) the results suggest that, when comparing many studies across unrelated datasets, differences in the measurement protocol may be less important than differences among seasons, years and the quality of local habitats.
Fil: Vaieretti, Maria Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Vile, Denis. Université de Sherbrooke; Canadá. Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; Francia
Fil: Garnier, Eric. Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; Francia
Materia
Argentina
Leaf Dry Matter Content
Plant Traits
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/41316

id CONICETDig_add814e28187139fccb08817043f23bc
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/41316
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of speciesVaieretti, Maria VictoriaDíaz, Sandra MyrnaVile, DenisGarnier, EricArgentinaLeaf Dry Matter ContentPlant Traitshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Background and Aims Leaf dry matter content (LDMC) is widely used as an indicator of plant resource use in plant functional trait databases. Two main methods have been proposed to measure LDMC, which basically differ in the rehydration procedure to which leaves are subjected after harvesting. These are the ‘complete rehydration’ protocol of Garnier et al. (2001, Functional Ecology 15: 688–695) and the ‘partial rehydration’ protocol of Vendramini et al. (2002, New Phytologist 154: 147–157). † Methods To test differences in LDMC due to the use of different methods, LDMC was measured on 51 native and cultivated species representing a wide range of plant families and growth forms from central-western Argentina, following the complete rehydration and partial rehydration protocols. †Key Results and Conclusions The LDMC values obtained by both methods were strongly and positively correlated, clearly showing that LDMC is highly conserved between the two procedures. These trends were not altered by the exclusion of plants with non-laminar leaves. Although the complete rehydration method is the safest to measure LDMC, the partial rehydration procedure produces similar results and is faster. It therefore appears as an acceptable option for those situations in which the complete rehydration method cannot be applied. Two notes of caution are given for cases in which different datasets are compared or combined: (1) the discrepancy between the two rehydration protocols is greatest in the case of high-LDMC (succulent or tender) leaves; (2) the results suggest that, when comparing many studies across unrelated datasets, differences in the measurement protocol may be less important than differences among seasons, years and the quality of local habitats.Fil: Vaieretti, Maria Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Vile, Denis. Université de Sherbrooke; Canadá. Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; FranciaFil: Garnier, Eric. Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; FranciaOxford University Press2007-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/41316Vaieretti, Maria Victoria; Díaz, Sandra Myrna; Vile, Denis; Garnier, Eric; Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species; Oxford University Press; Annals of Botany; 99; 5; 5-2007; 955-9580305-73641095-8290CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/99/5/955/2769310info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/aob/mcm022info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:49:48Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/41316instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:49:48.861CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
title Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
spellingShingle Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
Vaieretti, Maria Victoria
Argentina
Leaf Dry Matter Content
Plant Traits
title_short Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
title_full Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
title_fullStr Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
title_full_unstemmed Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
title_sort Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Vaieretti, Maria Victoria
Díaz, Sandra Myrna
Vile, Denis
Garnier, Eric
author Vaieretti, Maria Victoria
author_facet Vaieretti, Maria Victoria
Díaz, Sandra Myrna
Vile, Denis
Garnier, Eric
author_role author
author2 Díaz, Sandra Myrna
Vile, Denis
Garnier, Eric
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Argentina
Leaf Dry Matter Content
Plant Traits
topic Argentina
Leaf Dry Matter Content
Plant Traits
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Background and Aims Leaf dry matter content (LDMC) is widely used as an indicator of plant resource use in plant functional trait databases. Two main methods have been proposed to measure LDMC, which basically differ in the rehydration procedure to which leaves are subjected after harvesting. These are the ‘complete rehydration’ protocol of Garnier et al. (2001, Functional Ecology 15: 688–695) and the ‘partial rehydration’ protocol of Vendramini et al. (2002, New Phytologist 154: 147–157). † Methods To test differences in LDMC due to the use of different methods, LDMC was measured on 51 native and cultivated species representing a wide range of plant families and growth forms from central-western Argentina, following the complete rehydration and partial rehydration protocols. †Key Results and Conclusions The LDMC values obtained by both methods were strongly and positively correlated, clearly showing that LDMC is highly conserved between the two procedures. These trends were not altered by the exclusion of plants with non-laminar leaves. Although the complete rehydration method is the safest to measure LDMC, the partial rehydration procedure produces similar results and is faster. It therefore appears as an acceptable option for those situations in which the complete rehydration method cannot be applied. Two notes of caution are given for cases in which different datasets are compared or combined: (1) the discrepancy between the two rehydration protocols is greatest in the case of high-LDMC (succulent or tender) leaves; (2) the results suggest that, when comparing many studies across unrelated datasets, differences in the measurement protocol may be less important than differences among seasons, years and the quality of local habitats.
Fil: Vaieretti, Maria Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Vile, Denis. Université de Sherbrooke; Canadá. Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; Francia
Fil: Garnier, Eric. Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive; Francia
description Background and Aims Leaf dry matter content (LDMC) is widely used as an indicator of plant resource use in plant functional trait databases. Two main methods have been proposed to measure LDMC, which basically differ in the rehydration procedure to which leaves are subjected after harvesting. These are the ‘complete rehydration’ protocol of Garnier et al. (2001, Functional Ecology 15: 688–695) and the ‘partial rehydration’ protocol of Vendramini et al. (2002, New Phytologist 154: 147–157). † Methods To test differences in LDMC due to the use of different methods, LDMC was measured on 51 native and cultivated species representing a wide range of plant families and growth forms from central-western Argentina, following the complete rehydration and partial rehydration protocols. †Key Results and Conclusions The LDMC values obtained by both methods were strongly and positively correlated, clearly showing that LDMC is highly conserved between the two procedures. These trends were not altered by the exclusion of plants with non-laminar leaves. Although the complete rehydration method is the safest to measure LDMC, the partial rehydration procedure produces similar results and is faster. It therefore appears as an acceptable option for those situations in which the complete rehydration method cannot be applied. Two notes of caution are given for cases in which different datasets are compared or combined: (1) the discrepancy between the two rehydration protocols is greatest in the case of high-LDMC (succulent or tender) leaves; (2) the results suggest that, when comparing many studies across unrelated datasets, differences in the measurement protocol may be less important than differences among seasons, years and the quality of local habitats.
publishDate 2007
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2007-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/41316
Vaieretti, Maria Victoria; Díaz, Sandra Myrna; Vile, Denis; Garnier, Eric; Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species; Oxford University Press; Annals of Botany; 99; 5; 5-2007; 955-958
0305-7364
1095-8290
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/41316
identifier_str_mv Vaieretti, Maria Victoria; Díaz, Sandra Myrna; Vile, Denis; Garnier, Eric; Two measurement methods of leaf dry matter content produce similar results in a broad range of species; Oxford University Press; Annals of Botany; 99; 5; 5-2007; 955-958
0305-7364
1095-8290
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/99/5/955/2769310
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/aob/mcm022
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford University Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Oxford University Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613539265773568
score 13.070432