Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,911

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 access
Poorter, Hendrik, Niinemets, Ülo, Poorter, Lourens, Wright, Ian J., Villar, Rafael·2009·New Phytologist

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02830.x

Cites

7 of 7 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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 2,911

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.