Paper · 2026 · Botany Letters

Application of leaf “diminishing returns” scaling across woody plant life forms and growing seasons

Jun Sun; Zihan Zhu; Shujuan Cui; et al.

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

This study investigates the scaling relationship between leaf area and dry mass across three life forms and two seasons. We sampled 14 canopy and sub-canopy woody species and 12 understory woody species (hereafter referred to as trees, small trees, and shrubs) in Lushan National Nature Reserve, Jiangxi Province, China. The relationship between leaf area and dry mass was analyzed using standardized major axis (SMA) regression. Our results showed that the trees and small trees showed “diminishing returns” (α < 1.0) in May, but shifted to isometric scaling (α ≈ 1.0) in September. In contrast, shrubs maintained an isometric scaling relationship (α = 1.01). Across two seasons, all life forms have a common scaling slope of 0.95 and are significantly different from 1.0, and the normalization constant is significantly higher in May. This study confirms that seasonal changes in leaf growth contribute to variations in the scaling constants of leaf area and dry mass, with different investment strategies in growth stages across different life forms.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees and small trees showed diminishing returns scaling (α < 1.0) between leaf area and dry mass in May.

Taxon
trees and small treese0
Outcome
diminishing returnse0
Value
α < 1.0e0
Qualifier
Maye0

Verbatim

e0

“trees and small trees showed “diminishing returns” (α < 1.0) in May”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 458–525 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees and small trees shifted to isometric scaling (α ≈ 1.0) between leaf area and dry mass in September.

Taxon
trees and small treese0
Outcome
isometric scalinge0
Value
α ≈ 1.0e0
Qualifier
Septembere0

Verbatim

e0

“trees and small trees showed “diminishing returns” (α < 1.0) in May, but shifted to isometric scaling (α ≈ 1.0) in September”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 458–582 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shrubs maintained an isometric leaf area to dry mass scaling relationship (α = 1.01) across the seasons.

Taxon
shrubse0
Outcome
isometric scaling relationshipe0
Value
α = 1.01e0

Verbatim

e0

“shrubs maintained an isometric scaling relationship (α = 1.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 597–659 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Across the two seasons all life forms shared a common scaling slope of 0.95, significantly different from 1.0.

Taxon
life formse0
Outcome
common scaling slopee0
Value
0.95e0

Verbatim

e0

“all life forms have a common scaling slope of 0.95 and are significantly different from 1.0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–772 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The normalization constant of the leaf area to dry mass scaling was significantly higher in May in woody plant life forms.

Taxon
woody plantt0
Outcome
normalization constante0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
Maye0

Verbatim

e0

“the normalization constant is significantly higher in May”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–835 · show in text ↑
t0

“woody plant life forms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–79 · show in text ↑