4.3 Article

Relationship between specific leaf area, leaf thickness, leaf water content and SPAD-502 readings in six Amazonian tree species

期刊

PHOTOSYNTHETICA
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 184-190

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11099-009-0031-6

关键词

Carapa guianensis; Ceiba pentandra; Pithecolobium inaequale; Scleronema micranthum; Swietenia macrophylla

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology/National Institute for Research in the Amazon (MCT-INPA)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas [FAPEAM-PIPT-1746/08]
  3. CAPES
  4. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to assess the effect of leaf thickness, leaf succulence (L(S)), specific leaf area (SLA), specific leaf mass (W(s)) and leaf water content (LWC) on chlorophyll (Chl) meter values in six Amazonian tree species (Carapa guianensis, Ceiba pentandra, Cynometra spruceana, Pithecolobium inaequale, Scleronema micranthum and Swietenia macrophylla). We also tested the accuracy of a general calibration equation to convert Minolta Chl meter (SPAD-502) readings into absolute Chl content. On average, SPAD values (x) increased with fresh leaf thickness (FLT [mu m] = 153.9 + 0.98 x, r (2) = 0.06**), dry leaf thickness (DLT [mu m] = 49.50 + 1.28 x, r (2) = 0.16**), specific leaf mass (W(s) [g (DM) m(-2)] = 6.73 + 1.31 x, r (2) = 0.43**), and leaf succulence (L(S) [g(FM)] m(-2) = 94.2 + 1.58 x, r (2) = 0.19**). However, a negative relationship was found between SPAD values and either specific leaf area [SLA (m(2) kg(-1)) = 35.1 - 0.37 x, r (2) = 0.38**] or the leaf water content (LWC [%]= 80.0 - 0.42 x, r (2) = 0.58**). Leaf Chl contents predicted by the general calibration equation significantly differed (p < 0.01) from those estimated by species-specific calibration equations. We conclude that to improve the accuracy of the SPAD-502 leaf thickness and LWC should be taken into account when calibration equations are to be obtained to convert SPAD values into absolute Chl content.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据