First-pass extracted concept

leaf mass fraction

Candidate: concept label1 source documents5 linked claims

Jump to explainers Jump to evidence Jump to sources Jump to claims

Live refresh every 5sNext refresh in 5s

Aliases

LMF

Extracted Explainers

What the tool is doing

LMF quantifies the fraction of whole-plant biomass allocated to leaves. In this review it is used to compare how nutrients, light, temperature, size correction, and phylogeny influence allocation.

Source 1DOI PubMed

Resources required

Using LMF requires measurements of whole-plant biomass and the biomass represented by leaves. The abstract supports it as a derived allocation metric rather than a standalone assay or construct.

Source 1DOI PubMed

What problem it solves

It helps summarize leaf investment in a way that can be compared across species groups and environments. The review uses it as a main response variable in meta-analytic dose-response curves.

Source 1DOI PubMed

What it does not solve

The review indicates that LMF alone does not capture all plant adjustment capacity, because morphology traits such as SLA can vary more strongly. It therefore does not fully explain growth responses by itself.

Source 1DOI PubMed

Alternatives

The abstract contrasts LMF with specific leaf area (SLA) and also discusses stem fraction and specific stem length as related response dimensions.

Source 1DOI PubMed

Evidence Snippets

They show that the fraction of whole-plant mass represented by leaves (LMF) increases most strongly with nutrients and decreases most strongly with light.

Evidence 1Source 1DOI PubMedprovenance

Supporting Sources

Source 1review2011New PhytologistDOI PubMed

1 evidence snippet 5 linked claims Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3

Linked Claims

Claim 1comparative variabilitysupports2011Source 1DOI PubMed

Across most species-group and environmental comparisons, variation in leaf mass fraction is smaller than variation in specific leaf area.

Claim 2environmental effectsupports2011Source 1DOI PubMed

Leaf mass fraction increases most strongly with nutrient availability and decreases most strongly with light in the reviewed meta-analysis.

Claim 3phylogenetic patternsupports2011Source 1DOI PubMed

Biomass allocation shows phylogenetic effects, with eudicots investing relatively more than monocots in leaves and gymnosperms more than woody angiosperms.

Claim 4review conclusionsupports2011Source 1DOI PubMed

Plants are generally less able to adjust biomass allocation than to alter organ morphology.

Claim 5size correction effectsupports2011Source 1DOI PubMed

Correcting for size-induced allocation patterns diminishes the apparent leaf mass fraction response to light and makes the effect of temperature on leaf mass fraction more apparent.