SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Beerling DJ, Kelly C. 1997. Stomatal density responses of temperate woodland plants over the past seven decades of CO2 increase – a comparison of Salisbury (1927) with contemporary data. American Journal of Botany 84: 15721583.
  • Beerling D, Birks H, Woodward F. 1995. Rapid late glacial atmospheric CO2 changes reconstructed from the stomatal density record of fossil leaves. Journal of Quaternary Science 10: 379384.
  • Beerling DJ, McElwain JC, Osborne CP. 1998. Stomatal responses of the ‘Living Fossil’Ginkgo biloba L. to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 16031607.
  • Christophel DC, Gordon P. 2004. Genotypic control and environmental plasticity – foliar physiognomy and paleoecology. New Phytologist 161: 327329.
  • Christophel DC, Greenwood DR. 1989. Changes in climate and vegetation in Australia during the Tertiary. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 58: 95109.
  • Curtis WM, Morris DI. 1975. The student's flora of Tasmania. Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Government.
  • Day RW, Quinn GP. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecological Monographs 59: 433463.
  • Dengler NG. 1994. The influence of light on leaf development. In: IqbalM, ed. Growth patterns in vascular plants. Portland, OR, USA: Dioscorides Press, 100136.
  • Duarte L, Dillenburg LR. 1998. Ecophysiological responses of Araucaria angustifolia seedlings to different irradiance levels. Australian Journal of Botany 48: 531537.
  • Evans JR, Von Caemmerer S, Adams WW. 1988. Ecology of photosynthesis in sun and shade. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.
  • Fetcher N, Strain BR, Oberbauer SF. 1983. Effects of light regime on the growth, leaf morphology and water relations of seedlings of two species of tropical trees. Oecologia 58: 314319.
  • Gurevitch J. 1992. Sources of variation in leaf shape among two populations of Achillea lanulosa. Genetics 130: 385394.
  • Hovenden MJ. 2001. The influence of temperature and genotype on growth and stomatal morphology of southern beech, Nothofagus cunninghamii (Nothofagaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 49: 427434.
  • Hovenden MJ, Schimanski LJ. 2000. Genotypic differences in growth and stomatal morphology of Southern Beech, Nothofagus cunninghamii, exposed to depleted CO2 concentrations. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 27: 281287.
  • Hovenden MJ, Vander Schoor JK. 2004. Nature versus nurture in the leaf morphology of Southern beech, Nothofagus cunninghamii (Nothofagaceae). New Phytologist 161: 585594.
  • James SA, Bell DT. 2000. Influence of light availability on leaf structure and growth of two Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus provenances. Tree Physiology 20: 10071018.
  • Jordan GJ, Hill RS. 1994. Past and present variability in leaf length of evergreen members of Nothofagus subgenus lophozonia related to ecology and population dynamics. New Phytologist 127: 377390.
  • Klich MG. 2000. Leaf variations in Eleagnus angustifolia related to environmental heterogeneity. Environmental and Experimental Botany 44: 171183.
  • Lake JA, Quick WP, Beerling DJ, Woodward FI. 2001. Signals from mature to new leaves. Nature 411: 154.
  • McElwain JC. 2004. Climate-independent paleoaltimetry using stomatal density in fossil leaves as a proxy for CO2 partial pressure. Geology 32: 10171020.
  • McElwain JC, Chaloner WG. 1996. The fossil cuticle as a skeletal record of environmental change. Palaios 11: 376388.
  • McPherson S, Eamus D, Murray BR. 2004. Seasonal impacts on leaf attributes of several tree species growing in three diverse ecosystems of south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 52: 293301.
  • Onwueme IC, Johnston M. 2000. Influence of shade on stomatal density, leaf size and other leaf characteristics in the major tropical root crops, tannia, sweet potato, yam, cassava and taro. Experimental Agriculture 36: 509516.
  • Qiang W-Y, Wang X-I, Chen T, Feng H-Y, An LZ, Wang G. 2003. Variations of stomatal density and carbon isotope values of Picea crassifolia at different altitudes in the Qilian mountains. Trees 17: 258262.
  • Reid JB, Hill RS, Brown MJ, Hovenden MJ, eds. 1999. Vegetation of Tasmania. Canberra, Australia: Australian Biological Resources Study.
  • Roderick ML, Berry SL, Noble IR. 2000. A framework for understanding the relationship between environment and vegetation based on the surface area to volume ratio of leaves. Functional Ecology 14: 423437.
  • Royer DL. 2001. Stomatal density and stomatal index as indicators of paleoatmospheric CO2 concentration. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 114: 128.
  • Rundgren M, Beerling DJ. 1999. A Holocene CO2 record from the stomatal index of subfossil Salix herbacea L. leaves from northern Sweden. The Holocene 9: 509513.
  • Sack L, Cowan PD, Jaikumar N, Holbrook NM. 1993. The ‘hydrology’ of leaves: co-ordination of structure and function in temperate woody species. Plant, Cell & Environment 26: 13431356.
  • Sellin A. 2001. Morphological and stomatal responses of Norway spruce foliage to irradiance within a canopy depending on shoot age. Environmental and Experimental Botany 45: 115131.
  • Terashima I, Miyazawa S, Hanba YT. 2001. Why are sun leaves thicker than shade leaves? Consideration based on analyses of CO2 diffusion in the leaf. Journal of Plant Research 114: 93105.
  • Thomas PW, Woodward FI, Quick WP. 2003. Systemic irradiance signalling in tobacco. New Phytologist 161: 193198.
  • Wolfe JA, Upchurch GR. 1987. North American nonmarine climates and vegetation during the Late Cretaceous. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 61: 3377.
  • Woodward FI. 1987. Stomatal numbers are sensitive to increases in CO2 from pre-industrial level. Nature 327: 617618.