the leaves are arranged at right angles
to the Solar rays why
Answers
Answered by
8
They are arranged at 81°………so thay they receive optimum intensity of light and temparature on crop canopy
Answered by
3
HERE US YOUR ANSWER MATE
HOPE IT WILL HELP U...
: ]
.
.
Architecture can vary widely across species. Both steeper leaf angles and increased self‐shading are thought to reduce potential carbon gain by decreasing total light interception. An alternative hypothesis is that steeper leaf angles have evolved to improve day‐long carbon gain by emphasising light interception from low angles.
•
Here we relate variation in architectural properties (leaf angle and leaf size) to cross‐species patterns of leaf display, light capture and simulated carbon gain in branching‐units of 38 perennial species occurring at two sites in Australian forest. Architectural comparison was made possible by combining 3D‐digitising with the architecture model YPLANT.
•
Species with shallow angled leaves had greater daily light interception and potentially greater carbon gain. Self‐shading, rather than leaf angle, explained most variance between species in light capture and potential carbon gain. Species average leaf size was the most important determinant of self‐shading.
•
Our results provide the first cross‐species evidence that steeper leaf angles function to reduce exposure to excess light levels during the middle of the day, more than to maximise carbon gain.
angle of a leaf's surface to the horizontal (leaf angle) directly determines the flux of solar radiation per unit leaf area (Ehleringer & Werk, 1986; Ezcurra et al., 1991). Steeper leaf angles increase light capture when the sun is at low angles in the sky (morning/afternoon and winter), whilst decreasing light captures from higher angles (midday and summer). The benefits of steeper leaf angles include a reduction in midday heat‐loads, thereby increasing water use efficiency and decreasing the risk of overheating (King, 1997); a decrease in the susceptibility to mild or severe photoinhibition (Ryel et al., 1993; Valladares & Pugnaire, 1999; Werner et al., 2001b); and minimising water‐use with respect to daily carbon gain (Cowan, 1982).
Despite substantial variation in leaf angle within individuals of a species (Baldocchi et al., 1985; Russell et al., 1989; Niinemets, 1998; Kull et al., 1999; Utsugi, 1999; Barclay, 2001; Werner et al., 2001b), leaf angle distributions are typically unimodal, and species may differ in the mean or median of these distributions (McMillen & McClendon, 1979; Ehleringer, 1988). Leaf anatomy is co‐ordinated with leaf angle, which is evidence for consistent differences in leaf angle between species (King, 1997; Smith et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1998). Given that species differ in leaf angle, and that there are known implications for light capture, a primary aim of the research reported here was to quantify the magnitude of interspecific variation in light capture attributable to leaf angle.
MARK ME BRAINLEST
HOPE IT WILL HELP U...
: ]
.
.
Architecture can vary widely across species. Both steeper leaf angles and increased self‐shading are thought to reduce potential carbon gain by decreasing total light interception. An alternative hypothesis is that steeper leaf angles have evolved to improve day‐long carbon gain by emphasising light interception from low angles.
•
Here we relate variation in architectural properties (leaf angle and leaf size) to cross‐species patterns of leaf display, light capture and simulated carbon gain in branching‐units of 38 perennial species occurring at two sites in Australian forest. Architectural comparison was made possible by combining 3D‐digitising with the architecture model YPLANT.
•
Species with shallow angled leaves had greater daily light interception and potentially greater carbon gain. Self‐shading, rather than leaf angle, explained most variance between species in light capture and potential carbon gain. Species average leaf size was the most important determinant of self‐shading.
•
Our results provide the first cross‐species evidence that steeper leaf angles function to reduce exposure to excess light levels during the middle of the day, more than to maximise carbon gain.
angle of a leaf's surface to the horizontal (leaf angle) directly determines the flux of solar radiation per unit leaf area (Ehleringer & Werk, 1986; Ezcurra et al., 1991). Steeper leaf angles increase light capture when the sun is at low angles in the sky (morning/afternoon and winter), whilst decreasing light captures from higher angles (midday and summer). The benefits of steeper leaf angles include a reduction in midday heat‐loads, thereby increasing water use efficiency and decreasing the risk of overheating (King, 1997); a decrease in the susceptibility to mild or severe photoinhibition (Ryel et al., 1993; Valladares & Pugnaire, 1999; Werner et al., 2001b); and minimising water‐use with respect to daily carbon gain (Cowan, 1982).
Despite substantial variation in leaf angle within individuals of a species (Baldocchi et al., 1985; Russell et al., 1989; Niinemets, 1998; Kull et al., 1999; Utsugi, 1999; Barclay, 2001; Werner et al., 2001b), leaf angle distributions are typically unimodal, and species may differ in the mean or median of these distributions (McMillen & McClendon, 1979; Ehleringer, 1988). Leaf anatomy is co‐ordinated with leaf angle, which is evidence for consistent differences in leaf angle between species (King, 1997; Smith et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1998). Given that species differ in leaf angle, and that there are known implications for light capture, a primary aim of the research reported here was to quantify the magnitude of interspecific variation in light capture attributable to leaf angle.
MARK ME BRAINLEST
Similar questions