ライフサイエンスコーパス: leaf area

1 ndicating drought intolerance (high specific leaf area).

2 ificantly associated with the predictions of leaf area.

3 ues used to infer seasonal changes in canopy leaf area.

4 of crops to rising [CO2 ] is an increase in leaf area.

5 reduction in the ratio of fine root mass to leaf area.

6 otosynthesis and plant growth is affected by leaf area.

7 ea to mass, rather than fast growth per unit leaf area.

8 s in leaf area growth and leaf mass per unit leaf area.

9 t light, which represent a small fraction of leaf area.

10 p between photosynthesis and leaf N per unit leaf area.

11 e contributed to the decrease in Arabidopsis leaf area.

12 xylation rate of photosynthesis and specific leaf area.

13 a but no relationship between Delta(13)C and leaf area.

14 spite their lower assimilation rate per unit leaf area.

15 ion with how climate influences canopy total leaf area.

16 taneously by tall stature and small specific leaf area.

17 eaf area display and a reduction in specific leaf area.

18 of birch in mixed stands resulted in reduced leaf area.

19 arbon allocation, particularly allocation to leaf area.

20 ts in SPEN3 and KHD1 had reduced rosette and leaf areas.

21 n biomass (1.9-fold), height (1.5-fold), and leaf area (1.6-fold) than untransformed plants.

22 35%) cannot be explained by the reduction of leaf area ( 15%) and associated carbohydrate production

23 hotosynthetic CO(2) assimilation per unit of leaf area (A) has the potential to increase yield.

24 forbs, particularly those with high specific leaf area, a trait indicating drought sensitivity.

25 essing lines showed, on average, 27% reduced leaf area and 25% smaller rosettes versus 30% increased

26 nd 25% smaller rosettes versus 30% increased leaf area and 33% larger rosette size, respectively.

27 dioxide (CO2) assimilation rate per unit of leaf area and a 50% increase in leaf biomass as well as

28 carbon model with satellite observations of leaf area and biomass (where and when available) and soi

29 There were significant increases in all leaf area and biomass markers in response to [CO(2)] wit

30 parameters including height, tiller number, leaf area and biomass were generally higher in plants ex

31 r than wild-type plants, with both increased leaf area and biomass.

32 SGC plants outperform wild type with larger leaf area and biomass.

33 hrub abundance and associated shifts in both leaf area and canopy phenology on tundra carbon flux.

34 ter-conserving strategy by reducing specific leaf area and developing thicker roots and moderate till

35 rresponding to the traits leaf mass per unit leaf area and height at maturation.

36 s in resource allocation between sapwood and leaf area and in leaf water relations.

37 ima were driven by reductions in whole-plant leaf area and increased respiratory carbon losses.

38 however, were more than offset by the larger leaf area and its longer duration in Miscanthus.

39 icant increase in number of leaves with more leaf area and larger siliques as compared to wild type p

40 l traits - leaf dry matter content, specific leaf area and lateral spread - of plant communities domi

41 relation between retrievals of leaf mass per leaf area and leaf lifespan (r = 0.64-0.80) that matches

42 QTLs) responsible for growth trajectories of leaf area and leaf mass in the common bean (Phaseolus vu

43 d petiole elongation, and changes in overall leaf area and leaf mass per area, are the stereotypical

44 s was regulated by increased community-level leaf area and leaf-level photosynthesis and interannual

45 tested the hypothesis that canopy structure (leaf area and light availability) - remotely estimated f

46 sat and P50 x RR when Ksat was normalized by leaf area and mass (P = 0.05 and 0.01, respectively).

47 ey functional traits--wood density, specific leaf area and maximum height--consistently influence com

48 rofiles and develop models of ANPP driven by leaf area and other measurements of forest structure.

49 use increased in proportion to increases in leaf area and productivity but precipitation was still a

50 y, likely due to the higher productivity and leaf area and reduced water-use efficiency we observed i

51 d plant (15) N uptake, while higher specific leaf area and root tissue density increased microbial (1

52 itant decline in total leaf protein per unit leaf area and Rubisco as a percentage of leaf N.

53 Leaf area and seed production of SSP were greater and in

54 concentration) vs. leaf morphological (e.g. leaf area and thickness) traits.

55 han those of the wild type, with 40% greater leaf area and twice the biomass when plants were grown w

56 The relative contribution of the peak leaf area and vegetation stress intensity was highly var

57 soybean simulations at 550 ppm overestimated leaf area and yield.

58 outpace declines in productivity per unit of leaf area and, among other factors, age-related reductio

59 Shorter plants with large specific leaf areas and early flower or leaf-out dates were most

60 SUT4-RNAi plants had larger leaf areas and lower photosynthesis rates than wild-type

61 ny other predictions, including how specific leaf areas and resource stress impact biomass and leaf a

62 bution of nicotine was measured for selected leaf areas and variation in the relative nicotine levels

63 ith higher vein density and midrib xylem per leaf area, and a higher ratio of K(leaf-max) : maximum g

64 ed shortened root and shoot lengths, reduced leaf area, and decreased chlorophyll content.

65 es for enhanced propagule dispersal, greater leaf area, and deep-rooting access to nutrients and the

66 les in light regulation of hypocotyl length, leaf area, and flowering time are demonstrated for heter

67 e, we test the hypothesis that the amount of leaf area, and its vertical arrangement, predicts ANPP w

68 hole plant parameters including leaf number, leaf area, and leaf and root biomass.

69 aits (height, individual leaf area, specific leaf area, and leaf dry matter content) were evaluated a

70 tioles, larger leaf area, increased specific leaf area, and reduced leaf epinasty.

71 leaf morphological traits, such as specific leaf area, are not appropriate indicators of plant respo

72 CO2] on morphological development, primarily leaf area, are the sources of model uncertainty.

73 ariation, CV = 36%) than when expressed on a leaf area basis (CV = 66%), and relationships for broadl

74 ) /S and D(chl-chl) , inducing a decrease in leaf area before photosynthetic rate reduction.

75 Is this increase in leaf area beneficial, with respect to increasing yield,

76 relative differences in height and specific leaf area between plant species selected in mixtures (mi

77 significant; however, significant trends in leaf area, branch number and total above-ground biomass

78 sitive isometric scaling between K(Leaf) and leaf area but no relationship between Delta(13)C and lea

79 d LMA had minimal effect on K(Leaf) per unit leaf area, but a negative correlation exists among LMA,

80 reases carbon uptake not only due to greater leaf area, but also due to an extension of the period of

81 miting maximum stomatal conductance per unit leaf area, but also, at least in the case of sp5, develo

82 ntly reduced the eCO(2) -induced increase in leaf area by 14.3%, mirroring the aboveground biomass re

83 Consumption of leaf area by prescribed fire was associated with reducti

84 The increased leaf area can be attributed to increased cell division a

85 endent, even after accounting for changes in leaf area, consistent with laboratory studies but not pr

86 Breeding or bioengineering for lower leaf area could, therefore, contribute very significantl

87 e SAPs, having wider leaf blades and greater leaf area, dense and evenly distributed vertical canopie

88 t to explore how heterogeneity in horizontal leaf area density (LAD) within the canopy impacts the ul

89 The process-based model of the dynamics of leaf area described here is a key element to quantify th

90 owth models which differ in the modelling of leaf area development and crop water use.

91 The ability to predict leaf area development is critical to predict crop growth

92 Warming accelerated growth and leaf area development, and it increased the partitioning

93 d C allocation above ground, particularly to leaf area development, whereas reduced water availabilit

94 t of decreased photosynthesis, reduced total leaf area display and a reduction in specific leaf area.

95 -D digitiser and the Yplant program to model leaf area display and light interception.

96 ion particularly reduced the total amount of leaf area displayed at T(opt) and intermediate growth te

97 is 4.5 times greater than models using total leaf area (disregarding vertical arrangement) and 2.1 ti

98 other forest FACE sites and replacing L with leaf area duration (LD) to account for differences in gr

99 mbined from the four FACE experiments, using leaf area duration (LD) to account for differences in gr

100 n many cases, a positive correlation between leaf area duration and yield has been observed, although

101 ieback to whole-tree mortality reduce canopy leaf area during the stress period and for a lagged reco

102 ure in winter and proceeding to moisture and leaf area during the summer.

103 transgenic lines showed reduced leaf number, leaf area, dwarf phenotype and delayed seed germination.

104 e were used to develop a simulation model of leaf area dynamics at the canopy level that was integrat

105 The model accurately predicts leaf area dynamics under different scenarios of nitrogen

106 -humid) and limiting factors (soil moisture, leaf area, energy).

107 tration and functional diversity in specific leaf area exhibited positive correlations with tree biom

108 Nicotiana benthamiana leaf areas expressing basal resistance no longer elicite

109 ning by generating dynamic carbon demands in leaf area growth and leaf mass per unit leaf area.

110 gh alterations in carbon partitioning to new leaf area growth and leaf mass per unit leaf area; howev

111 We measured traits such as leaf area, growth rate, flowering time, main stem branch

112 new leaf area growth and leaf mass per unit leaf area; however, CGR-mediated pectin methylesterifica

113 bolism (P50), sapwood allocation relative to leaf area (Hv) and drought exposure (psi(min) ), and mat

114 density (WD), and allocation to stem area vs leaf area in branches (branch Huber value (HV)) across t

115 all biomes, and positively with its specific leaf area in most biomes.

116 rate of photosynthesis was constant per unit leaf area in parents and hybrids.

117 that trees contribute only half of the total leaf area in the forest.

118 be predicted by the vertical distribution of leaf area in this system.

119 hese plants also had longer petioles, larger leaf area, increased specific leaf area, and reduced lea

120 We measured leaf area index (L) and volumetric soil water content (t

121 We show that at a FACE site where leaf area index (L) of Pinus taeda L. was altered throug

122 availability, through its control on canopy leaf area index (L).

123 GPPSIF and chlorophyll content; P < 0.0001), leaf area index (LAI) (R(2 ) = 0.35 for canopy GPPSIF an

124 observed net primary productivity (NPP) and leaf area index (LAI) after 100 years and predicted comp

125 -harvesting adaptations (e.g., variations in leaf area index (LAI) and increasing leaf-level assimila

126 ct conditions strongly depended on GDD, MTA, leaf area index (LAI) and the interaction between MTA an

127 original ED2 produced unrealistically small leaf area index (LAI) and underestimated cumulative leaf

128 We then examined the proportional change in leaf area index (LAI) as one potential biological respon

129 rst investigated trends in the seasonal mean leaf area index (LAI) at northern latitudes (north of 30

130 We present a method for reconstructing leaf area index (LAI) based on light-dependent morpholog

131 ving systems are now routinely used to infer leaf area index (LAI) given its significance in spatial

132 The removal rate dependence on the Leaf Area Index (LAI) is also investigated.

133 Furthermore, leaf area index (LAI) is central to the prediction of Om

134 nal dynamics in the vertical distribution of leaf area index (LAI) may impact the seasonality of fore

135 We used a tundra plant-community-specific leaf area index (LAI) model to estimate LAI throughout t

136 he long-term performance of global satellite leaf area index (LAI) products is important for global c

137 (delta) coordinates with total canopy N and leaf area index (LAI) to maximize whole-crown carbon (C)

138 Leaf area index (LAI) underpins terrestrial ecosystem fu

139 We tested the following hypotheses: (1) Leaf area index (LAI) will be highly correlated with ann

140 photosynthetically active radiation (fPAR), Leaf Area Index (LAI)) and ground-based data (soil moist

141 owed that the plant intercept fraction (%I), leaf area index (LAI), and leaf height (h(leaf)) strongl

142 synthetic rate, transpiration, plant height, leaf area index (LAI), biomass, and yield were measured.

143 g biomass, biomass allocation, canopy cover, leaf area index (LAI), carbon and nitrogen content, and

144 ost three weeks of increased community-level leaf area index (LAI), indicating greater competition an

145 ics limiting thaw (shallower ALTs) were tree leaf area index (LAI), moss layer thickness and understo

146 ht attenuation is primarily regulated by the leaf area index (LAI), which is governed by changes in s

147 CO2 fluxes of wetlands were also related to leaf area index (LAI).

148 oss all treatments with increasing overstory leaf area index (LAI).

149 essure deficit and days since rain) and with leaf area index (LAI).

150 (+46.5%), leaf area per plant (+29.7%), and leaf area index (LAI, +24.4%).

151 P < 0.05) pools are strongly correlated with leaf area index (LAI, leaf area per unit ground area).

152 o main drivers of P in sub-Arctic tundra are leaf area index (LT ) and total foliar nitrogen (NT ).

153 on showed that leaves within a 3.3-m canopy (leaf area index = 8.3) show a progressive increase in bo

154 edicted soil moisture, groundwater depth and leaf area index agreed with the observations.

155 oil nitrate concentrations, crop dry matter, leaf area index and grain yields all agreed well with me

156 summer (negative) GPP responses to warming, leaf area index and moisture availability were the best

157 sea-surface temperature, soil moisture, and leaf area index are quantified and found to dominate the

158 -use efficiency lead to increases in maximum leaf area index at elevated carbon dioxide concentration

159 The forests increased in leaf area index by 0.01 per year on average (from 1.7 in

160 Leaf area index data from satellites along with climate

161 ne egress from A. glutinosa, suggesting that leaf area index is not a suitable approach for scaling t

162 tmospheric CO(2) concentration and satellite leaf area index measurements.

163 atures for photosynthesis and a high minimum leaf area index needed for the forest to compete for spa

164 Canopy light interception and leaf area index were greater in HS93-4118 in ambient [CO

165 ings due to stomatal closure, and changes in leaf area index) effects of elevated CO2 across a variet

166 orophyll content, hyperspectral reflectance, leaf area index, and light interception) were generated

167 y of the surface area of leaf cohorts, total leaf area index, and total green area index, respectivel

168 a plant that grows more biomass adds to the leaf area index, creating negative feedback in the form

169 primarily driven by increases in vegetation leaf area index, dominated by greening.

170 easured grain yield, plant biomass, plant N, leaf area index, harvest index and in-season soil water

171 reflectance seasonality: seasonal changes in leaf area index, in canopy-surface leafless crown fracti

172 asured the seasonality of canopy structural (leaf area index, LAI) and biochemical properties (leaf c

173 Leaf quantity (i.e., canopy leaf area index, LAI), quality (i.e., per-area photosynt

174 Leaf area index, leafless crown fraction and leaf demogr

175 Leaf area index, MAT and MAP, predicted 74% of variation

176 stem level, indirect effects (e.g. increased leaf area index, soil water savings) may amplify or damp

177 r growth, tree size class distributions, and leaf area index.

178 ge in forest canopies after normalization on leaf area index.

179 roductivity, temperature, precipitation, and leaf area index.

180 GPP that was associated with differences in leaf area index.

181 duced structural changes, such as increasing leaf-area index (LD), may cause, or compensate for, redu

182 areas and resource stress impact biomass and leaf area indices.

183 re approximately distributed proportional to leaf area instead of mass, as expected for a light- and

184 on of all other photosynthetic complexes per leaf area is less affected.

185 reatest in the multi-group scenario when its leaf area is significantly larger than each of its indiv

186 whole leaf, cell and airspace thickness, and leaf area) is associated with reduction in K(leaf) at de

187 By modifying total canopy leaf area, its vertical profile and angular distribution

188 ns of total trait variation were identified: leaf area (LA), internal-to-ambient CO(2) ratio (chi), l

189 Leaf area (LA), mass per area (LMA), nitrogen per unit a

190 We find that specific leaf area (leaf area per unit mass)-a commonly measured

191 partly compensates for their relatively low leaf area : leaf mass ratio.

192 sitive response to elevated CO2 (in biomass, leaf area, leaf mass per area, and photosynthesis), but

193 rease in antioxidant capacity while reducing leaf area, light absorption, specific leaf mass, primary

194 source-acquisitive strategies (high specific leaf area, light seeds, short heights) accrued more biom

195 ping") declines with lower plant biomass and leaf area, limiting deposition in secondary forest.

196 trade-offs between NM and leaf mass per unit leaf area (LM ).

197 was closely linked to leaf dry mass per unit leaf area (LMA) and that whole-tree biomass reductions w

198 Leaf dry mass per unit leaf area (LMA) is a central trait in ecology, but its a

199 chlorophyll, nitrogen (N) and mass per unit leaf area (LMA) were also determined.

200 Leaf area low in the canopy exhibited behaviour consiste

201 drier climate, including lower mean specific leaf area, lower relative cover by species of northern b

202 ss, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) per unit leaf area (Ma , Na and Pa , respectively), and chlorophy

203 For three leaf traits (specific leaf area, maximum carboxylation rate at 25 degrees C, a

204 These seasonal swings in leaf area may be critical to initiation of the transitio

205 Forest trees accumulate leaf area more rapidly than savanna trees, thereby accel

206 a similar advantage over OP in nitrogen per leaf area (Narea), even in arid climates, despite diazot

207 rd after accounting for mean annual climate, leaf area, nitrogen deposition and changes in CO(2) meas

208 st Pacific illustrate that plant stature and leaf area obey the island rule, but seed size does not.

209 However, reduction in leaf area occurs earlier than that in the photosynthetic

210 ent satellite data, seasonal swings in green leaf area of approximately 25% in a majority of the Amaz

211 effect of the longer peak season and greater leaf area of deciduous shrub canopies almost tripled the

212 The average leaf area of Miscanthus was double that of maize, with t

213 est GEP responses largely reflect changes in leaf area of Salix arctica, rather than changes in leaf-

214 te dry season that coincides with increasing leaf area of the understory layer.

215 umber through development, leading to larger leaf areas of all leaves in the hybrid, suggest a centra

216 Tissue succulence (ratio of tissue water/leaf area or dry mass) or the ability to store water wit

217 area) , +14.3%), with no changes in specific leaf area or leaf mass per area.

218 green-up phenomenon, including increases in leaf area or leaf reflectance, using a sophisticated rad

219 t of dissimilarity was detected for specific leaf area or wood density, and only a weak benefit for m

220 were detected in mature cell size, specific leaf area, or relative photosynthetic electron transport

221 ht intensities were shown to produce greater leaf area over time, estimated by noninvasive imaging.

222 he increases in total leaf biomass (+46.5%), leaf area per plant (+29.7%), and leaf area index (LAI,

223 rongly correlated with leaf area index (LAI, leaf area per unit ground area).

224 We find that specific leaf area (leaf area per unit mass)-a commonly measured morphologic

225 growth was primarily mediated by changes in leaf area per unit plant mass, photosynthesis, and whole

226 nd DeltaT, where acclimated forests adjusted leaf area, photosynthetic capacity, and stand density to

227 The 200 mM NaCl significantly reduced the leaf area, plant dry mass, net photosynthetic rate (PN),

228 r axes of plant strategy variation (specific leaf area, plant height, and seed mass) in tree assembla

229 ith low light extinction coefficients and/or leaf area, pointing toward a novel direction for future

230 Partitioning leaf area profiles into size-class components, we found

231 that could use LiDAR remote sensing to link leaf area profiles with tree size distributions, compari

232 eotropical rain forest, we quantify vertical leaf-area profiles and develop models of ANPP driven by

233 Vertical leaf-area profiles predict 38% of the variation among pl

234 Furthermore, ANPP predictions from vertical leaf-area profiles were less biased than alternate metri

235 (r(2) = 0.56) than to stomatal flux per unit leaf area (r(2) = 0.42).

236 iques was strongly correlated with overstory leaf area (r(2) = 0.92).

237 The Huber value H(v) (sapwood area/leaf area ratio) is central to plant water balance and d

238 s the major global drivers of branch sapwood/leaf area ratios.

239 On soil, leaf area reduction in E. salsugineum was mainly due to

240 SSA relationship to the leaf Amass -specific leaf area relationship, we suggest the existence of a ph

241 the ratio of cross-sectional sapwood area to leaf area), sapwood-specific and leaf-specific stem hydr

242 ncy, plants have evolved a capacity by which leaf area scales allometrically with leaf mass through i

243 ntitative trait loci (QTLs) that mediate how leaf area scales with leaf mass and how such leaf allome

244 er parameterization based on metrics such as leaf area, senescence state, stomatal conductance, soil

245 Here, we use leaf area sensitivity to ambient CO(2) from the past 36

246 conservative functional traits (low specific leaf area, short stature) were replaced by species with

247 species with denser wood and lower specific leaf area showed lower mortality responses.

248 tive osmotic pressure at full turgor, as did leaf area shrinkage between full turgor and oven desicca

249 g niche differences associated with specific leaf area (SLA) and leaf dry matter content (LDMC).

250 e due to phase-dependent changes in specific leaf area (SLA) and leaf N but not photosynthetic bioche

251 chlorophyll (Chl) concentration and specific leaf area (SLA) of 25 grassland species were measured.

252 are seen in short small-leaved low-specific leaf area (SLA) shrubs with low K(s) in arid relative to

253 i), leaf economics spectrum traits (specific leaf area (SLA) versus leaf dry matter content (LDMC) an

254 raits of small seeds, high seedling specific leaf area (SLA), and tall seedlings.

255 atively with biomass, plant height, specific leaf area (SLA), and tissue starch content (TSC), sugges

256 al traits (seed mass, wood density, specific leaf area (SLA), maximum height, and longevity of a tree

257 cies-specific traits (plant height, specific leaf area (SLA), root aerenchyma, starch content) and so

258 ficant G x E) for all traits except specific leaf area (SLA).

259 ntent (6.3% spring, 13.3% FACE) and Specific Leaf Area (SLA, 9.7% spring, 6.0% FACE).

260 it (% below turgid saturation), and specific leaf area (SLA, cm(2) g(-1)) on new growth of sapling br

261 verage had larger leaves and larger specific leaf areas (SLA) than those from cold climates, and disp

262 area exposed to intercellular air space per leaf area (Sm ) is closely associated with CO2 diffusion

263 xylation rate of photosynthesis and specific leaf area, soybean simulations at 550 ppm overestimated

264 our plant species traits (height, individual leaf area, specific leaf area, and leaf dry matter conte

265 g time) and drought avoidance (e.g. specific leaf area, succulence) traits exhibited geographic or cl

266 oderate, reflecting both the large amount of leaf area supported by culms and diurnal loss of hydraul

267 acquisitive functional traits (high specific leaf area, tall stature).

268 respectively, by increases in a tree's total leaf area that outpace declines in productivity per unit

269 cues but not on the accompanying changes in leaf area that regulate vegetation-atmosphere exchanges

270 Leaf area, the leaf economics spectrum (indexed by LMA a

271 Total leaf area (TLA) was increased significantly, as indicate

272 ure and an allometry that allows substantial leaf area to be supported on relatively slender culms, a

273 ncement is driven largely by a high ratio of leaf area to mass, rather than fast growth per unit leaf

274 tials, wood density, leaf mass per area, and leaf area to sapwood area ratio to provide insight into

275 ty margin and negatively correlated with the leaf area to sapwood area ratio.

276 tained similar photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area to square wave-grown plants.

277 conductivity, leaf/needle size, tree height, leaf area-to-sapwood area ratio), and drought tolerance

278 hosphate dikinase (PPDK) protein content per leaf area transiently declined in M. x giganteus but the

279 tent, the extractable PPDK activity per unit leaf area (V(max)(,ppdk)) in cold-grown M. x giganteus l

280 Leaf vein length per unit leaf area (VLA; also known as vein density) is an import

281 eather), but attribution to the expansion of leaf area vs. changes in vegetation composition remains

282 constantly affects the allometric growth of leaf area vs. leaf mass for the common bean (Phaseolus v

283 e canopy stomatal conductance (gs ) per unit leaf area was 12% higher in females in May : June, but w

284 ve effect on neighbours, while high specific leaf area was correlated with a low competitive effect.

285 a salt-mediated reduction in E. salsugineum leaf area was unmasked.

286 Plant performance, in terms of branching and leaf area, was both reduced and enhanced by different qu

287 foliar nutrient concentrations and specific leaf area were greatest in relatively short patches in l

288 Reductions in transpiration rate (TR) and leaf area were greatest with foramsulfuron applications

289 rom 30 to 37% when wood density and specific leaf area were included).

290 Annuals and invaders with high-specific leaf area were only successful early in stand developmen

291 Yet, LDMC and specific leaf area were retained in the lowest Akaike information

292 Species average height and specific leaf area were the most useful traits, predicting severa

293 ast-targeted genes were not up-regulated and leaf areas were only marginally increased.

294 bstantial lateral CO(2) diffusion rates into leaf areas where stomata were blocked by grease patches

295 ins of larger diameter, but lower length per leaf area, whereas minor vein traits were independent of

296 the intensity of vegetation stress and peak leaf area, whereas the impact of the change in growing s

297 n reduced gs is not offset by greater canopy leaf area, which could potentially result in a greater E

298 To investigate fine-scale variation in leaf area with seasonality and drought we conducted mont

299 considerable low R:FR-mediated increases in leaf area, with reduced low R:FR-mediated petiole elonga

300 today's and future [CO2 ] and that reducing leaf area would give higher yields.