3 Ackerly DD, Donoghue MJ (1998). Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner's rules: phylogeny and correlated evolution in maples ( Acer ). Am Nat 152, 767-791.
[4]
6 Bonser SP, Aarssen LW (1994). Plastic allometry in young sugar maple ( Acer saccharum ): adaptive responses to light availability. Am J Bot 81, 400-406.
[5]
24 R Core Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Compu- ting, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
[6]
25 Ryan MG, Yoder BJ (1997). Hydraulic limits to tree height and tree growth. Bioscience 47, 235-242.
28 Sun SC, Jin DM, Shi PL (2006). The leaf size-twig size spectrum of temperate woody species along an altitudinal gradient: an invariant allometric scaling relationship. Ann Bot 97, 97-107.
[9]
29 Venable DL (1992). Size-number trade-offs and the variation of seed size with plant resource status. Am Nat 140, 287-304.
[10]
30 Warton DI, Weber NC (2002). Common slope tests for bivariate errors-in-variables models. Biometrical J 44, 161-174.
[11]
31 Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006). Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev 81, 259-291.
[12]
33 Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ (2002). Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33, 125-159.
[13]
35 Whitman T, Aarssen LW (2010). The leaf size/number trade-off in herbaceous angiosperms. J Plant Ecol 3, 49-58.
[14]
36 Wright IJ, Westoby M, Reich PB (2002). Convergence towards higher leaf mass per area in dry and nutrient-poor habitats has different consequences for leaf life span. J Ecol 90, 534-543.
[15]
37 Yang DM, Li GY, Sun SC (2008). The generality of leaf size versus number trade-off in temperate woody species. Ann Bot 102, 623-629.
[16]
4 Ackerly DD, Knight C, Weiss S, Barton K, Starmer K (2002). Leaf size, specific leaf area and microhabitat distribution of chaparral woody plants: contrasting patterns in species level and community level analyses. Oecologia 130, 449-457.
[17]
5 Ackerly DD, Reich PB (1999). Convergence and corre- lations among leaf size and function in seed plants: a comparative test using independent contrasts. Am J Bot 86, 1272-1281.
[18]
7 Givnish TJ (1978). Ecological aspects of plant morphology: leaf form in relation to environment. Acta Biotheor 27, 83-142.
[19]
8 Givnish TJ (1987). Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New Phytol 106, 131-160.
[20]
9 Givnish TJ, Vermeij GJ (1976). Sizes and shapes of liane leaves. Am Nat 110, 743-778.
[21]
10 Gleason HA, Cronquist A (1991). Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. New York: The New York Botanical Garden.
[22]
11 Jakobsson A, Eriksson O (2000). A comparative study of seed number, seed size, seedling size and recruitment in grassland plants. Oikos 88, 494-502.
[23]
12 Jensen KH, Zwieniecki MA (2013). Physical limits to leaf size in tall trees. Phys Rev Lett 110, 018104.
[24]
13 Kleiman D, Aarssen LW (2007). The leaf size/number trade-off in trees. J Ecol 95, 376-382.
[25]
14 Li T, Deng JM, Wang GX, Cheng DL, Yu ZL (2009). Isometric scaling relationship between leaf number and size within current-year shoots of woody species across contrasting habitats. Polish J Ecol 57, 659-667.
[26]
15 Milla R (2009). The leafing intensity premium hypothesis tested across clades, growth forms and altitudes. J Ecol 97, 972-983.
[27]
16 Moles AT, Falster DS, Leishman MR, Westoby M (2004). Small-seeded species produce more seeds per square metre of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime. J Ecol 92, 384-396.
[28]
17 Moles AT, Westoby M (2000). Do small leaves expand faster than large leaves, and do shorter expansion times reduce herbivore damage? Oikos 90, 517-524.
[29]
18 Niinemets Ü (1998). Are compound-leaved woody species inherently shade-intolerant? An analysis of species ecological requirements and foliar support costs. Plant Ecol 134, 1-11.
[30]
19 Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tena D, Tobias M, Matesanz S, Valladares F (2007a). Do we underestimate the impor- tance of leaf size in plant economics? Disproportional scaling of support costs within the spectrum of leaf physiognomy. Ann Bot 100, 283-303.
[31]
20 Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tobias M (2006). Leaf size modifies support biomass distribution among stems, petioles and mid-ribs in temperate plants. New Phytol 171, 91-104.
[32]
21 Niinemets Ü, Portsmuth A, Tobias M (2007b). Leaf shape and venation pattern alter the support investments within leaf lamina in temperate species: a neglected source of leaf physiological differentiation? Funct Ecol 21, 28- 40.
[33]
22 Parkhurst DF, Loucks OL (1972). Optimal leaf size in relation to environment. J Ecol 60, 505-537.
[34]
23 Poorter H, Pepin S, Rijkers T, De Jong Y, Evans JR, Körner C (2006). Construction costs, chemical composi- tion and payback time of high-and low-irradiance leaves. J Exp Bot 57, 355-371.
[35]
26 Shipley B, Dion J (1992). The allometry of seed production in herbaceous angiosperms. Am Nat 139, 467-483.
[36]
32 Watson MA, Casper BB (1984). Morphogenetic constraints on patterns of carbon distribution in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15, 233-258.
[37]
34 Westoby M, Wright IJ (2003). The leaf size-twig size spectrum and its relationship to other important spectra of variation among species. Oecologia 135, 621-628.
