Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Leaf anatomy, specific mass and water content in congeneric annual and perennial grass species

GARNIER, E., LAURENT, G.·1994·New Phytologist

Abstract

summary: Previous experiments have shown that leaf specific mass (LSM: the ratio of leaf dry mass lo area) was lower and leaf water content (LWC) was higher in annuals than in perennials, differences that are more generally found between fast‐and slow‐growing species. Leaf transverse sections of seven annual‐perennial pairs of grass species grown in the laboratory were analyzed to elucidate the anatomical bases of these differences. Leaf thickness was similar in annuals and perennials, but leaf density was significantly higher in perennials. The proportion of the leaf volume occupied by mesophyll was higher in annuals, at the expense of the three other tissues (i.e. epidermis, sclerenchyma and vascular tissues). The cross‐sectional area of mesophyll cells was higher in annuals than in perennials, but epidermal cell size was similar for both life‐forms. The ranges of LSM (23.1–49.5 g m −2) and LWC (0.70–0.86 g g−1) displayed by the 14 species were large enough to examine the general relationships between these two parameters and various anatomical characters. LSM was significantly correlated with leaf density, but not with leaf thickness. The anatomical character that best explained interspecific differences in LSM was the volume of cell walls per unit leaf area (approximated by the sum: sclerenchyma + vascular tissues (including its living component) + cell wall components of mesophyll and epidermis). LWC was found to depend on leaf density, and interspecific differences in this parameter were best explained by the proportion of mesophyll protoplast (i.e. proportion of mesophyll minus proportion of mesophyll occupied by cell walls) in the transverse sections. The physiological and ecological implications of these findings are discussed in terms of a trade‐off between leaf productivity and persistence.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb04036.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
GARNIER, E., & LAURENT, G.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-12
Volume
128
Issue
4
Pages
725-736
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2104853210
Cited by
408
References
1
FWCI
10.85
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 anatomy, specific mass and water content in congeneric annual and perennial grass species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb04036.x
The paper
GARNIER, E., & LAURENT, G. (1994). Leaf anatomy, specific mass and water content in congeneric annual and perennial grass species. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb04036.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.