↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity of leaf size and shape to climate: global patterns and paleoclimatic applications

Overview of attention for article published in New Phytologist, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
534 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensitivity of leaf size and shape to climate: global patterns and paleoclimatic applications
Published in
New Phytologist, February 2011
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03615.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Peppe, Dana L. Royer, Bárbara Cariglino, Sofia Y. Oliver, Sharon Newman, Elias Leight, Grisha Enikolopov, Margo Fernandez‐Burgos, Fabiany Herrera, Jonathan M. Adams, Edwin Correa, Ellen D. Currano, J. Mark Erickson, Luis Felipe Hinojosa, John W. Hoganson, Ari Iglesias, Carlos A. Jaramillo, Kirk R. Johnson, Gregory J. Jordan, Nathan J. B. Kraft, Elizabeth C. Lovelock, Christopher H. Lusk, Ülo Niinemets, Josep Peñuelas, Gillian Rapson, Scott L. Wing, Ian J. Wright

Abstract

• Paleobotanists have long used models based on leaf size and shape to reconstruct paleoclimate. However, most models incorporate a single variable or use traits that are not physiologically or functionally linked to climate, limiting their predictive power. Further, they often underestimate paleotemperature relative to other proxies. • Here we quantify leaf-climate correlations from 92 globally distributed, climatically diverse sites, and explore potential confounding factors. Multiple linear regression models for mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) are developed and applied to nine well-studied fossil floras. • We find that leaves in cold climates typically have larger, more numerous teeth, and are more highly dissected. Leaf habit (deciduous vs evergreen), local water availability, and phylogenetic history all affect these relationships. Leaves in wet climates are larger and have fewer, smaller teeth. Our multivariate MAT and MAP models offer moderate improvements in precision over univariate approaches (± 4.0 vs 4.8°C for MAT) and strong improvements in accuracy. For example, our provisional MAT estimates for most North American fossil floras are considerably warmer and in better agreement with independent paleoclimate evidence. • Our study demonstrates that the inclusion of additional leaf traits that are functionally linked to climate improves paleoclimate reconstructions. This work also illustrates the need for better understanding of the impact of phylogeny and leaf habit on leaf-climate relationships.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 534 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 1%
Germany 3 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 501 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 104 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 103 19%
Student > Master 62 12%
Student > Bachelor 58 11%
Professor 34 6%
Other 84 16%
Unknown 89 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 214 40%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 94 18%
Environmental Science 68 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 3%
Chemistry 4 <1%
Other 28 5%
Unknown 109 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,583,534
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from New Phytologist
#3,208
of 8,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,141
of 184,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Phytologist
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.