Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2008 Jan 14;52(4):377–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1994.tb00999.x

A comparative study of the distribution and density of stomata in the British flora

H J PEAT 1,†, A H FITTER 1
PMCID: PMC7161871  PMID: 32313305

Abstract

The distribution of stomata over both leaf surfaces may affect both the photosynthetic rate and water use efficiency of species, implying that species with different photosynthetic and water requirements may also have different stomatal distributions. A database containing data on the distribution of stomata on the leaves of 469 British plant species was used to look for relationships between stomatal distribution (including both location on the leaf and density) and both habitat and morphological variables. Statistical models were applied to the data that minimized any effects that phylogenetic constraints may have had on the data.

Hypostomaty is common in woody species, species which typically occur in shaded habitats and species with large or glabrous leaves. Amphistomaty, however, predominates in species which occur in non‐shaded habitats, species with small, dissected or hairy leaves, and in annual species. Amphistomaty, therefore, tends to occur in species where CO2 may be limiting photosynthesis (unshaded environments), or where there are structures to prevent water loss from the leaf (e.g. hairs). Hypostomaty, however, occurs in slow‐growing species (e.g. trees), species with leaves which have large boundary layers (large or entire leaves) and in species where CO2 is unlikely to limit photosynthesis (shaded habitats).

Keywords: hypostomaty, amphistomaty, comparative analyses, habitat ‐morphology, stomatal density, shade

REFERENCES

  1. Clapham AR, Tutin TG, Moore DM. 1987. Flora of the British Isles, 3rd Edition Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Clutton‐Brock TH, Harvey PH. 1977. Primate ecology and social organisation. Journal of Zoology 183, 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ehleringer JR. 1980. Leaf morphology and reflectance in relation to water and temperature stress In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ, eds. Adaptations of plants to water and high temperature stress: New York : Wiley, 295–308. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ellenberg H. 1988. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, 4th Edition Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Etherington JR. 1983. Wetland Ecology. London : Edward Arnold. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fitter AH. 1978. An Atlas of the Wild Flowers of Britain and Northern Europe. London : Collins. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fitter AH, Peat HJ. 1994. The ecological flora database. Journal of Ecology, in press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Foster JR, Smith WK. 1986. Influence ofstomatal distribution on transpiration in low‐wind environments. Plant, Cell and Environment 9, 751–759. [Google Scholar]
  9. Givnish TJ. 1987. Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. Mew Phylologist 106 (Supplement), 131–160. [Google Scholar]
  10. Harvey PH, Mace G. 1982. Comparisons between taxa and adaptive trends: problems of methodology In: King's College Sociobiology Group Current problems in sociobiology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 343–361. [Google Scholar]
  11. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford : Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jones HG. 1985. Adaptive significance of leaf development and structural responses to environment In: Control of Leaf Growth. Society for Experimental Biology seminar series 27 Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones HG, Slatyer RO. 1972. Effects of intercellular resistances on estimates of the intracellular resistance to CO2 uptake by plant leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 25, 443–453. [Google Scholar]
  14. Korner Ch, Neumayer M, Menendez‐Riedl S, Smeets‐Scheel A. 1989. Functional morphology of mountain plants. Flora 182, 353–383. [Google Scholar]
  15. Martin JT, Juniper BE. 1970. The Cuticles of Plants. London : Edward Arnold. [Google Scholar]
  16. Meidner H, Mansfield TA. 1968. Physiology of Stomata. London : McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moss D. 1991. The CORINE biotopes manual, habitats of the European community. Data specifications–part 2. Luxembourg : Commission of the European Communities. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mott KA, Gibson AC, O'Leary JW. 1982. The adaptive significance of amphistomatic leaves. Plant, Cell and Environment 5, 455–460. [Google Scholar]
  19. Parkhurst DF. 1978. The adaptive significance of stomatal occurrence on one or both surfaces of leaves. Journal of Ecology 66, 367–383. [Google Scholar]
  20. Parlange J.‐Y, Waggoner PE. 1970. Stomatal dimensions and resistance to diffusion. Plant Physiology 46, 337–342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Peat HJ. 1992. An ecological database of the British flora. Unpublished D.Phil, Thesis, University of York.
  22. Pospisilova J, Solarova J. 1980. Environmental and biological control of diffusive conductances of adaxial and abaxial leaf epidermes. Photosynthetica 14, 90–127. [Google Scholar]
  23. Salisbury EJ. 1927. On the causes and ecological significance ofstomatal frequency, with special reference to the woodland flora. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 216, 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  24. Stace CA. 1991. Mew Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Stebbins GL. 1974. Flowering Plants. Cambridge , Massachusetts : Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Turner NC. 1979. Differences in response of adaxial and abaxial stomata to environmental variables In: Sen DN, ed. Structures, Function and Ecology of Stomata. Dehra‐Dun , India : Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. [Google Scholar]
  27. Woodward FI, Bazzaz FA. 1988. The response of stomatal density to CO2 partial pressure. Journal of Experimental Botany 39, 1771–1781. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES