바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN2287-8327
  • E-ISSN2288-1220
  • SCOPUS, KCI

ISSN : 2287-8327

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.1

Citation Share

Comparison of Two Nondestructive Methods of Leaf Area Estimation

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2009, v.32 no.1, pp.61-65


& (2009). Comparison of Two Nondestructive Methods of Leaf Area Estimation. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 32(1), 61-65.

Abstract

We compared two nondestructive methods for leaf area estimation using leaves of 16 common plant species classified into six types depending on leaf shape. Relatively good linear relationships between actual leaf area (LA) and leaf length (L), width (W), or the product of length and width (LW) were found for ordinary leaves with lanceolate, oblanceolate, linear and sagitttate shapes with entire margins, serrate margins, mixed margins with a entire form and shallow lobes, and ordinary incised margins. LA was better correlated with LW than L or W, with R2 > 0.91. However, for deeply incised lobes, LA estimation using LW showed low correlation coefficient values, indicating low accuracy. On the other hand, a method using photographic paper showed a good correlation between estimates of area based on the mass of a cut-out leaf image on a photographic sheet (PW) and actual leaf area for all types of leaf shape. Thus, the PW method for LA estimation can be applied to all shapes of leaf with high accuracy. The PW method takes a little more time and has a higher cost than leaf estimation methods using LW based on leaf dimensions. These results indicate that researchers should choose their nondestructive LA estimation method according to their research goals.

keywords
Leaf area, Leaf shape, Nondestructive estimation, Photographic paper

Reference

1.

Bunce JS. 1989. Growth rate, photosynthesis and respiration in relation to leaf area index. Ann Bot 63: 459-463.

2.

Lott JE, Howard SB, Black CR, Ong CK. 2000. Allometric estimation of above-ground biomass and leaf area in managed Grevillea robusta agroforestry systems. Agroforest Sys 49: 1-15.

3.

Lu HY, Lu CT, Wei ML, Chan LF. 2004. Comparison of different models for nondestructive leaf area estimation in taro. Agron J 96: 448-453.

4.

Meier IC, Leuschner C. 2008. Leaf size and leaf area index in Fagus sylvastica forests: competing effects of precipitation, temperature and nitrogen availability. Ecosystems 11: 655-669.

5.

Merilo E, Heinsoo K, Kull O, Sorderbergh I, Lundmark T, Koppel A. 2006. Leaf photosynthetic properties in a willow (Salix viminalis and Salix dasyclados) plantation in response to fertilization. Eur J For Res 125: 93-100.

6.

Nomoto N, Saeki T. 1969. Dry matter accumulation in sunflower and maize leaves as measured by an improved half-leaf method. Bot Mag 82: 20-27.

7.

Robbins NS, Pharr DM. 1987. Leaf area prediction models for cucumber from linear measurements. Hot Sci 22: 1264-1266.

8.

Rouphael Y, Rivera CM, Cardarelli M, Fanasca S, Colla G. 2006. Leaf area estimation from linear measurement in zucchini plants of different ages. J Hor Sci Biotech 81: 238-241.

9.

Serdar U, Demirsoy H. 2006. Non-destructive leaf area estimation in chestnut. Sci Hor 108: 227-230.

10.

Stewart DW, Dwyer LM. 1999. Mathematical characterization of leaf shape and area in maize hybrids. Crop Sci 39: 422-427.

11.

Tsialtas JT, Maslaris N. 2005. Leaf area estimation in a sugar beet cultivar by linear models. Photosynthetica 43: 477-479.

12.

Tsialtas JT, Maslaris N. 2007. Leaf shape and its relationship with in a sugar beet cultivar. Photosynthetica 45: 527-532.

13.

Williams L, Martinson TE. 2003. Nondestructive leaf area estimation of 'Niagara' and 'DeChaunac' grapevines. Sci Hort 98: 493-498.

14.

VanWijk MT, Willams M, Shaver GR. 2005. Tight coupling between leaf area index and foliage N content in arctic plant community. Oecologia 142: 421-427.

Journal of Ecology and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy