3.9 Article

Variation in SLA and LMA of Deciduous Quercus cerris var. cerris and Evergreeen Phillyrea latifolia According to Directional, Seasonal and Climatical Parameters

Journal

EKOLOJI
Volume 20, Issue 81, Pages 21-29

Publisher

FOUNDATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & RESEARCH-FEPR
DOI: 10.5053/ekoloji.2011.814

Keywords

LMA; Phillyrea latifblia; Quercus cerris var. earns; SLA; variation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, variation in specific leaf area (SLA) and leaf mass per area (LMA) of evergreen Phillyrea latifolia and decidious Quercus cerris var. cerris were examined according to directional, seasonal and climatical parameters during a vegetation period. Calculations were done in both area and mass basis to determine if there was a difference in results or not. The field study was carried out in Q. cerris forest in Samsun, northern Turkey. Leaves were collected monthly from individuals chosen in different directions. SLA and LMA of both taxon were calculated and evaluated statistically. As a result, except June in P latifolia, there wasn't significant difference in SLA and LMA due to direction. However, There were seasonal variations in SLA and LMA for both taxon. Maximum SLA was estimated in spring, May, maximum LMA was estimated in fall, September in both taxon. SLA and LMA of Q. cards var. cerris were related with temperature, not related with fall and relative moisture, of P latifolia weren't related with temperature, fall and relative moisture. Compairing results calculated in area and mass basis, there wasn't any differences in Q. cerris var. earns; in P latifolia number of variation groups increased in mass basis. Correlation between SLA and dry mass, LMA and dry mass were examined; it was found that correlation between LMA and biomass was most linear in both taxon. Thus, it is thought that evaluation in mass basis is more suitable for variation studies related with ecological factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available