The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Here, we analysed a wide range of literature data on the leaf dry mass per unit area (LMA). In nature, LMA varies more than 100‐fold among species. Part of this variation (c. 35%) can be ascribed to differences between functional groups, with evergreen species having the highest LMA, but most of the variation is within groups or biomes. When grown in the same controlled environment, leaf succulents and woody evergreen, perennial or slow‐growing species have inherently high LMA. Within most of the functional groups studied, high‐LMA species show higher leaf tissue densities. However, differences between evergreen and deciduous species result from larger volumes per area (thickness). Response curves constructed from experiments under controlled conditions showed that LMA varied strongly with light, temperature and submergence, moderately with CO 2 concentration and nutrient and water stress, and marginally under most other conditions. Functional groups differed in the plasticity of LMA to these gradients. The physiological regulation is still unclear, but the consequences of variation in LMA and the suite of traits interconnected with it are strong. This trait complex is an important factor determining the fitness of species in their environment and affects various ecosystem processes. Contents Summary 565 I. LMA in perspective 566 II. LMA in the field 567 III. Inherent differences 568 IV. Relation with anatomy and chemical composition 570 V. Environmental effects 572 VI. Differences in space and time 577 VII. Molecular regulation and physiology 579 VIII. Ecological consequences 580 IX. Conclusions and perspectives 582 Acknowledgements 582 References 582 Appendices 587
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
Cites
The worldwide leaf economics spectrum
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D. D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., Cavender-Bares, J., Chapin, T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Diemer, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02403 · Cited by 9,021
Self-citationUnderstanding plant responses to drought—from genes to the whole plant.
Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P., & Pereira, J. S. (2003) · Functional Plant Biology · doi:10.1071/fp02076 · Cited by 3,845
Lavorel, S., & Garnier, E. (2002) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x · Cited by 3,452
PLANT FUNCTIONAL MARKERS CAPTURE ECOSYSTEM PROPERTIES DURING SECONDARY SUCCESSION
Garnier, E., Cortez, J., Billès, G., Navas, M.-L., Roumet, C., Debussche, M., Laurent, G., Blanchard, A., Aubry, D., Bellmann, A., et al. (2004) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/03-0799 · Cited by 2,313
A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme
Westoby, M. (1998) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1004327224729 · Cited by 1,925 · cited 1×
“The LMA plays a central role in various plant strategy schemes (Westoby, 1998; Grime, 2001; Westoby et al., 2002), where it can be considered an index of a species’ position along a continuum between low-LMA species at one end (that realize a fast resource acquisition and growth), and high-LMA species at the other (th…”
BackgroundIncorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments
Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., de Bello, F., Quétier, F., Grigulis, K., & Robson, T. M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704716104 · Cited by 1,658
Evans, J. R., & Poorter, H. (2001) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00724.x · Cited by 1,229
Self-citation
Cited by
TRY – a global database of plant traits
KATTGE, J., DÍAZ, S., LAVOREL, S., PRENTICE, I. C., LEADLEY, P., BÖNISCH, G., GARNIER, E., WESTOBY, M., REICH, P. B., WRIGHT, I. J., et al. (2011) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02451.x · Cited by 2,638
Self-citationHogewoning, S. W., Trouwborst, G., Maljaars, H., Poorter, H., van Ieperen, W., & Harbinson, J. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erq132 · Cited by 957
Self-citationPhysiological and structural tradeoffs underlying the leaf economics spectrum
Onoda, Y., Wright, I. J., Evans, J. R., Hikosaka, K., Kitajima, K., Niinemets, Ü., Poorter, H., Tosens, T., & Westoby, M. (2017) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.14496 · Cited by 722
Self-citationGarcía‐Palacios, P., Maestre, F. T., Kattge, J., & Wall, D. H. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12137 · Cited by 679
Which is a better predictor of plant traits: temperature or precipitation?
Moles, A. T., Perkins, S. E., Laffan, S. W., Flores‐Moreno, H., Awasthy, M., Tindall, M. L., Sack, L., Pitman, A., Kattge, J., Aarssen, L. W., et al. (2014) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.1111/jvs.12190 · Cited by 481
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü., Poorter, L., Wright, I. J., & Villar, R.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04-16
- Volume
- 182
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 565-588
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2117329063
- Cited by
- 2,911
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 74.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02830.x
- The paper
- Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü., Poorter, L., Wright, I. J., & Villar, R. (2009). Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta‐analysis. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02830.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.