The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: what consequences for light interception?
Abstract
• Architecture can vary widely across species. Both steeper leaf angles and increased self-shading are thought to reduce potential carbon gain by decreasing total light interception. An alternative hypothesis is that steeper leaf angles have evolved to improve day-long carbon gain by emphasising light interception from low angles. • Here we relate variation in architectural properties (leaf angle and leaf size) to cross-species patterns of leaf display, light capture and simulated carbon gain in branching-units of 38 perennial species occurring at two sites in Australian forest. Architectural comparison was made possible by combining 3D-digitising with the architecture model YPLANT. • Species with shallow angled leaves had greater daily light interception and potentially greater carbon gain. Self-shading, rather than leaf angle, explained most variance between species in light capture and potential carbon gain. Species average leaf size was the most important determinant of self-shading. • Our results provide the first cross-species evidence that steeper leaf angles function to reduce exposure to excess light levels during the middle of the day, more than to maximise carbon gain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Niinemets, Ü. (2010) · Ecological Research · doi:10.1007/s11284-010-0712-4 · Cited by 676
Sensitivity of leaf size and shape to climate: global patterns and paleoclimatic applications
Peppe, D. J., Royer, D. L., Cariglino, B., Oliver, S. Y., Newman, S., Leight, E., Enikolopov, G., Fernandez‐Burgos, M., Herrera, F., Adams, J. M., et al. (2011) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03615.x · Cited by 616
Lebrija-Trejos, E., Pérez-García, E. A., Meave, J. A., Bongers, F., & Poorter, L. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-1449.1 · Cited by 567
Cunliffe, A. M., Brazier, R. E., & Anderson, K. (2016) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.05.019 · Cited by 365
Royer, D. L., Wilf, P., Janesko, D. A., Kowalski, E. A., & Dilcher, D. L. (2005) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.92.7.1141 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Falster, D. S., & Westoby, M.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04-16
- Volume
- 158
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 509-525
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2108872139
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: what consequences for light interception? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00765.x
- The paper
- Falster, D. S., & Westoby, M. (2003). Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: what consequences for light interception? New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00765.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.