Table 1.
αRMA (95% CI) | Log βRMA (95% CI) | r2 | |
---|---|---|---|
Feng et al. data (n=269) | |||
Log MA vs. log MR | 1·08 (1·05, 1·11) | 0·529 (0·495, 0·564) | 0·957 |
Log MS vs. log MR | 1·09 (1·06, 1·11) | 0·479 (0·443, 0·515) | 0·955 |
Luo data (n=1266) | |||
Log MA vs. log MR | 0·977 (0·961, 0·994) | 0·572 (0·527, 0·617) | 0·651 |
Log MS vs. log MR | 1·02 (1·01, 1·04) | 0·467 (0·421, 0·514) | 0·653 |
Luo and Feng et al. data (n=1534) | |||
Log MA vs. log MR | 1·03 (1·02, 1·04) | 0·519 (0·487, 0·537) | 0·883 |
Log MS vs. log MR | 1·05 (1·03, 1·07) | 0·450 (0·425, 0·475) | 0.881 |
MA vs. MR or MS vs. MR scaling exponents in bold type have 95% CIs that numerically include those reported at the level of individual plants (αRMA=1·06 and 1·08, respectively; see Niklas, 2005).