Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:40:19.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Measurement of leaf longevity of 14 species of grasses and forbs using a novel approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1999

J. M. CRAINE
Affiliation:
Deparment of Integrative Biology, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
D. M. BERIN
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074, USA
P. B. REICH
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
D. G. TILMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
J. M. H. KNOPS
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
Get access

Abstract

Grasses and forbs are often classified into separate functional types, although systematic differences between the types have only been verified for a few functional traits. Since leaf longevity has been shown to be a key trait linking plant ecophysiology, whole-plant growth and ecosystem resource cycling, we compared the leaf longevity of 14 species to determine if there were consistent differences between grasses and forbs or other functional classifications, such as persistence of leaves into winter. Leaf longevity was assessed in 6-yr-old monoculture plots in central North America by tagging and sequentially monitoring the phenological states of whole forb leaves and sections of grass leaves. This new approach enables a calculation of leaf longevity unbiased by the manner in which grass leaves grow and provides a more accurate comparison between grasses and forbs. Lupinus perennis had the shortest leaf longevity (4 wk) and Koeleria cristata, Poa pratensis, and Solidago rigida the longest (13–14 wk). Average leaf longevity for the 14 species was c. 9 wk, with no significant differences between grasses and forbs nor between current alternative functional classifications.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Trustees of the New Phytologist 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)