DOI: 10.5061/dryad.ksn02v7g5
title: Data from: Contrasting water, dry matter and air contents distinguish orthophylls, sclerophylls and succophylls (leaf succulents)

description: Differences in leaf texture (hardness, thickness) distinguish orthophylls
 (soft leaves), sclerophylls (hard leaves) and (semi)succophylls
 (water-storing leaves). Texture is controlled by dry matter, water and air
 contents. Our aim was to a) identify the best index of succulence, b)
 assess how these three components vary with leaf type, and c) derive
 bounds for these properties among the four main leaf-texture classes.
 Eight contrasting species from the Namib Desert, South Africa were
 assessed for their leaf area (A), thickness (z), dry mass (D), saturated
 water content (Q), and relative volume of dry matter, water and air to
 derive various indices of leaf texture. Q/A (= QV•z), where QV is
 saturated water storage per unit volume of leaf, is an ideal index of
 succulence. Specific leaf area (SLA) is more suitable as an index of
 hardness (SLA-1 = D/A) but only among non-succulents. Rising leaf specific
 gravity among sclero-orthophylls is due to replacement of air by dry
 matter but water among succophylls. Collation of 13 worldwide studies
 showed that orthophylls can be distinguished by Q/A ≤ 0.45 mg water mm-2
 leaf surface from succophylls with ≥ 0.9, such that there is a divergent
 relationship among plants regarding their water-storing properties.
 Semi-succophylls can be defined as having a Q/A &gt; 0.45 to &lt;
 0.9, and sclerophylls can be separated from orthophylls by a SLA ≤ 10 mm2
 mg-1 dry mass. The distribution of these leaf texture classes may vary
 greatly within, and especially between, local floras.
description: <em>Fieldwork</em> Leaves were
 collected from eight species growing wild at Groenriviersond, 500 km north
 of Cape Town, South Africa (30º 51' S, 17º 34' E). The species
 were selected to cover the full range of textures among perennials at the
 study site [specific leaf area (SLA) ranged from 2 to 20
 mm<sup>2</sup> mg<sup>-1</sup>, Lamont and Lamont
 2000]. They were <em>Pteronia onobromoides</em> (Asteraceae,
 shrub to 50 cm tall, hard-leaved), <em>Salvia lanceolata</em>
 (Lamiaceae, shrub to 1 m tall, soft-leaved), <em>Eriocephalus
 africanus</em> (Asteraceae, shrub to 1 m tall, soft-leaved),
 <em>Stoeberia utilis</em> (Aizoaceae, syn.
 Mesembryanthemaceae, ground creeper, succulent), <em>Ruschia
 fugitans</em> (Aizoacae, syn. Mesembryanthemaceae, ground creeper,
 large-leaved succulent), <em>Zygophyllum morgsana</em>
 (Zygophyllaceae, shrub to 50 cm, semi-succulent), <em>Othonna
 cylindrica</em> (Asteraceae, shrub to 40 cm, succulent) and
 <em>Senecio</em> aff. <em>sarcoides
 </em>(Asteraceae, undershrub, small-leaved succulent). Nomenclature
 is as given in Eccles <em>et al</em>. (1999) and, from hereon,
 only the genus names are used. Leaves of all species were iso(bi)lateral
 and sessile (except <em>Salvia</em>).  As this is a shrubland,
 all species were growing in the open so that differences in microclimate
 would have had no role in affecting the results. They varied from
 apparently sclerophyllous to highly succulent. On a water mass content per
 unit volume basis, <em>Q</em><sub>v</sub>, two
 species were in the range 40-50%, three were 60-70%, and three were 80-95%
 (Lamont and Lamont 2000). Thus, the water-storing properties of the eight
 species studied formed a well-defined gradient that proved ideal for
 testing the hypotheses outlined here. The study site
 lies in the southern portion of the Namib Desert. The vegetation is part
 of the succulent karoo and consists of clumps of climbers to woody shrubs
 up to 2 m tall (Eccles et al. 2001). The soil is red aeolian sand
 overlying an impenetrable silcrete hardpan at about 2 m depth. Rainfall
 was 79 mm in the year of the study although fog and dew are regular
 occurrences (Fradera-Soler et al. 2021).
 <em>Laboratory work</em> Current
 season’s mature twigs (100–150 mm long) were removed from side branches of
 6–8 plants of each species by cutting under water predawn. They were kept
 with their ends in water at 17.5–20.5ºC and covered with plastic bags for
 1–4 days in the laboratory to promote full hydration. They were then recut
 under water and their pressure-volume relations determined following the
 protocol of Radford and Lamont (1992). The balancing pressure was achieved
 with a digital pressure chamber, model 1003, PMS Instruments, Corvallis,
 OR, USA. In order to obtain turgid (saturated) mass as needed for this
 study, wet weight values of twigs were extrapolated to Y  = 0, i.e., full
 turgidity. Ten mature, full-sized leaves were removed from other stems,
 and these plus the original supporting twigs used were weighed, frozen at
 -16ºC to rupture the cells and hasten drying, dried at 72ºC for 48 h and
 reweighed. From this, turgid mass of the twigs was used to obtain leaf
 turgid mass (60–95% of total mass for individual twigs).
 Midpoint thickness of 10 leaves from three plants was determined
 with callipers. Projected area (<em>A</em>) was obtained by
 placing 30 leaves or more diagonally on the conveyor belt of an area meter
 (Li-Cor 3000, Lincoln, NK, USA). Adjustments were made for the shape of
 leaves and their volume (<em>V</em>) determined geometrically
 (Lamont et al. 2015): five were cylindrical (<em>V</em> =
 p/4<em>z</em>•<em>A</em>) where
 <em>z</em> was diameter, two were laminate
 (<em>V</em> = <em>z</em>•<em>A
 </em>where <em>z</em> was thickness) and one was
 subulate (<em>V</em> = mean
 <em>z</em>•<em>A</em>), all lacking midribs. SLA
 [<em>A</em>/<em>D</em> =
 (<em>D</em><sub>V</sub>•<em>z</em>)<sup>-1</sup>, where <em>D</em> = dry leaf mass and <em>D</em><sub>V </sub>= dry leaf density on a volume basis, Witkowski and Lamont 1991] was adjusted for leaf shape in the same way, and <em>D</em><sub>V </sub>and <em>Q</em><sub>V</sub> (dry matter and saturated water mass per unit leaf volume) were based on these measurements. Volume of dry matter was determined by removing all, and only, mature leaves from six twigs, bulking and macerating after oven-drying as above to pass through a 1.1 mm mesh, then twice through a 0.3 mm mesh. The powder was then moistened with a wetting agent (1% Tween 20) in distilled water to form a thick paste. A cork borer (internal diameter 3.58 mm) was pushed into the paste, to produce an initial firm cylinder 20–40 mm in length. It was then placed on a paper tissue to absorb water over plastic sheeting on a fibrocement base. An iron rod of diameter 3.50 mm was pushed into the borer and tapped with a small hammer about 30 times, until water no longer squeezed out of the bottom. The pressure applied was up to 5.1 kg cm<sup>-2</sup> but it was usually about 2.1 kg cm<sup>-2</sup>. The cylinder of compressed paste was forced out with the rod, and the ends cut with a razor blade as required to produce a perfect cylinder and its length and width determined with callipers. 3–5 cylinders were obtained per species. They were dried at 65ºC for 40 h and kept in a desiccator until weighing. <em>Properties assessed</em> Knowing <em>D</em><sub>v</sub> (<em>D</em>/<em>V</em>) and volume of dry matter per unit dry mass (<em>V</em><sub>D</sub>/<em>D</em>), the contribution of dry matter volume – essentially cell walls, but including protein and most solutes) – to total volume [(<em>V</em><sub>D</sub>/<em>D</em>)(<em>D</em>/<em>V</em>)<em> </em>= <em>V</em><sub>D</sub>/<em>V</em> = <em>F</em><sub>D</sub>] and air, <em>F</em><sub>a</sub> = (1 – <em>F</em><sub>D</sub>) were calculated. Thus, colloidal protein and other non-soluble substances were put with structure rather than cytoplasm or vacuole when estimating volume fractions (as in Roderick <em>et al</em>. 1999b). Some solutes may not have been adsorbed or held back by the cell-wall components during compression, but, even if some were lost, their contribution to volume would be negligible (&lt; 0.01% of dry matter according to our estimates). Formulae for specific gravity (r) based on either non-air leaf volume (r<sub>Q+D</sub>) or total leaf volume (r<sub>l</sub>) (see Table 1) were as given in Roderick <em>et al</em>. (1999a). Z Wang et al. (2022) fitted a single relationship between SLA and <em>Q</em>/<em>D</em> for over 3,000 species distributed throughout most of the world’s vegetation types, especially in China and North America, that did not appear to include succophylls (confirmed in a later figure). We therefore decided to compare <em>Q</em>/<em>D</em> with SLA (<em>A</em>/<em>D</em>) (as did they among many other structural and ecophysioloical properties of the species), whose slope produces <em>Q</em>/<em>A</em> – our preferred index of succulence, with all data sets which did include succulents that we could locate: ours and 12 others (Table 3). These were identified by feeding in the keywords: water content, succulent, SLA, into Google Scholar®. This yielded about 200 papers that were inspected to see if they provided data on <em>Q</em>/<em>M </em>and SLA, or they could be obtained from leaf dry matter (LDMC) or water content on a turgid mass basis. LDMC = <em>D</em>/(<em>D </em>+ <em>Q</em>) that was inverted and 1 subtracted to give <em>Q</em>/<em>D. Q</em>/(<em>Q</em> + <em>D</em>) values were inverted, 1 subtracted, and re-inverted to give <em>Q</em>/<em>D</em>. Some data were obtained by measuring the length of bars in figures with callipers (to 0.05 mm) and converted to the indices of interest using the scale on the axis. Some data sets had to be rejected as their units were clearly incorrect and the solution was not obvious, while some listed papers proved impossible to obtain. Half the papers used fresh mass to calculate <em>Q</em> that is misleading as it should be based on turgid mass if it is to be treated as a property of the plant rather than as a proximate response to the conditions of the day. No attempts to at least harvest the plants predawn were evident (see above for how turgid mass can be obtained, including extrapolation from pressure-volume curves). In this case, <em>Q</em>/<em>D</em> was multiplied by 1.1 (i.e., water content increased by 10%) to adjust for the error unless it was grown in hydroponics or water content exceeded 90% when any error would be small. For similar reasons, plants subjected to drought stress treatments were ignored.  In passing, we note that many species had leaves with a <em>Q</em><sub>M</sub> of only 50% or less and wonder how successful the claims of turgid mass were.
description: # Data from: Contrasting water, dry matter and air contents distinguish
 orthophylls, sclerophylls and succophylls (leaf succulents)
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ksn02v7g5](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ksn02v7g5) ## Description of the data and file structure *Fieldwork* Leaves were collected from eight species growing wild at Groenriviersond, 500 km north of Cape Town, South Africa (30º 51' S, 17º 34' E). The species were selected to cover the full range of textures among perennials at the study site [specific leaf area (SLA) ranged from 2 to 20 mm2 mg-1, Lamont and Lamont 2000]. They were *Pteronia onobromoides* (Asteraceae, shrub to 50 cm tall, hard-leaved), *Salvia lanceolata* (Lamiaceae, shrub to 1 m tall, soft-leaved), *Eriocephalus africanus* (Asteraceae, shrub to 1 m tall, soft-leaved), *Stoeberia utilis* (Aizoaceae, syn. Mesembryanthemaceae, ground creeper, succulent), *Ruschia fugitans* (Aizoacae, syn. Mesembryanthemaceae, ground creeper, large-leaved succulent), *Zygophyllum morgsana* (Zygophyllaceae, shrub to 50 cm, semi-succulent), *Othonna cylindrica* (Asteraceae, shrub to 40 cm, succulent) and *Senecio* aff. *sarcoides *(Asteraceae, undershrub, small-leaved succulent). Nomenclature is as given in Eccles *et al*. (1999) and, from hereon, only the genus names are used. Leaves of all species were iso(bi)lateral and sessile (except *Salvia*).  As this is a shrubland, all species were growing in the open so that differences in microclimate would have had no role in affecting the results. They varied from apparently sclerophyllous to highly succulent. On a water mass content per unit volume basis, *Q*v, two species were in the range 40-50%, three were 60-70%, and three were 80-95% (Lamont and Lamont 2000). Thus, the water-storing properties of the eight species studied formed a well-defined gradient that proved ideal for testing the hypotheses outlined here. The study site lies in the southern portion of the Namib Desert. The vegetation is part of the succulent karoo and consists of clumps of climbers to woody shrubs up to 2 m tall (Eccles et al. 2001). The soil is red aeolian sand overlying an impenetrable silcrete hardpan at about 2 m depth. Rainfall was 79 mm in the year of the study although fog and dew are regular occurrences (Fradera-Soler et al. 2021). *Laboratory work* Current season’s mature twigs (100–150 mm long) were removed from side branches of 6–8 plants of each species by cutting under water predawn. They were kept with their ends in water at 17.5–20.5ºC and covered with plastic bags for 1–4 days in the laboratory to promote full hydration. They were then recut under water and their pressure-volume relations determined following the protocol of Radford and Lamont (1992). The balancing pressure was achieved with a digital pressure chamber, model 1003, PMS Instruments, Corvallis, OR, USA. In order to obtain turgid (saturated) mass as needed for this study, wet weight values of twigs were extrapolated to Y  = 0, i.e., full turgidity. Ten mature, full-sized leaves were removed from other stems, and these plus the original supporting twigs used were weighed, frozen at -16ºC to rupture the cells and hasten drying, dried at 72ºC for 48 h and reweighed. From this, turgid mass of the twigs was used to obtain leaf turgid mass (60–95% of total mass for individual twigs). Midpoint thickness of 10 leaves from three plants was determined with callipers. Projected area (*A*) was obtained by placing 30 leaves or more diagonally on the conveyor belt of an area meter (Li-Cor 3000, Lincoln, NK, USA). Adjustments were made for the shape of leaves and their volume (*V*) determined geometrically (Lamont et al. 2015): five were cylindrical (*V* = p/4*z*•*A*) where *z* was diameter, two were laminate (*V* = *z*•*A *where *z* was thickness) and one was subulate (*V* = mean *z*•*A*), all lacking midribs. SLA [*A*/*D* = (*D*V•*z*)-1, where *D* = dry leaf mass and *D*V = dry leaf density on a volume basis, Witkowski and Lamont 1991] was adjusted for leaf shape in the same way, and *D*V and *Q*V (dry matter and saturated water mass per unit leaf volume) were based on these measurements. Volume of dry matter was determined by removing all, and only, mature leaves from six twigs, bulking and macerating after oven-drying as above to pass through a 1.1 mm mesh, then twice through a 0.3 mm mesh. The powder was then moistened with a wetting agent (1% Tween 20) in distilled water to form a thick paste. A cork borer (internal diameter 3.58 mm) was pushed into the paste, to produce an initial firm cylinder 20–40 mm in length. It was then placed on a paper tissue to absorb water over plastic sheeting on a fibrocement base. An iron rod of diameter 3.50 mm was pushed into the borer and tapped with a small hammer about 30 times, until water no longer squeezed out of the bottom. The pressure applied was up to 5.1 kg cm-2 but it was usually about 2.1 kg cm-2. The cylinder of compressed paste was forced out with the rod, and the ends cut with a razor blade as required to produce a perfect cylinder and its length and width determined with callipers. 3–5 cylinders were obtained per species. They were dried at 65ºC for 40 h and kept in a desiccator until weighing. *Properties assessed* Knowing *D*v (*D*/*V*) and volume of dry matter per unit dry mass (*V*D/*D*), the contribution of dry matter volume – essentially cell walls, but including protein and most solutes) – to total volume [(*V*D/*D*)(*D*/*V*)* *= *V*D/*V* = *F*D] and air, *F*a = (1 – *F*D) were calculated. Thus, colloidal protein and other non-soluble substances were put with structure rather than cytoplasm or vacuole when estimating volume fractions (as in Roderick *et al*. 1999b). Some solutes may not have been adsorbed or held back by the cell-wall components during compression, but, even if some were lost, their contribution to volume would be negligible (&lt; 0.01% of dry matter according to our estimates). Formulae for specific gravity (r) based on either non-air leaf volume (rQ+D) or total leaf volume (rl) (see Table 1) were as given in Roderick *et al*. (1999a). Z Wang et al. (2022) fitted a single relationship between SLA and *Q*/*D* for over 3,000 species distributed throughout most of the world’s vegetation types, especially in China and North America, that did not appear to include succophylls (confirmed in a later figure). We therefore decided to compare *Q*/*D* with SLA (*A*/*D*) (as did they among many other structural and ecophysiological properties of the species), whose slope produces *Q*/*A* – our preferred index of succulence, with all data sets which did include succulents that we could locate: ours and 12 others (Table 3). These were identified by feeding in the keywords: water content, succulent, SLA, into Google Scholar®. This yielded about 200 papers that were inspected to see if they provided data on *Q*/*M *and SLA, or they could be obtained from leaf dry matter (LDMC) or water content on a turgid mass basis. LDMC = *D*/(*D *+ *Q*) that was inverted and 1 subtracted to give *Q*/*D. Q*/(*Q* + *D*) values were inverted, 1 subtracted, and re-inverted to give *Q*/*D*. Some data were obtained by measuring the length of bars in figures with callipers (to 0.05 mm) and converted to the indices of interest using the scale on the axis. Some data sets had to be rejected as their units were clearly incorrect and the solution was not obvious, while some listed papers proved impossible to obtain. Half the papers used fresh mass to calculate *Q* that is misleading as it should be based on turgid mass if it is to be treated as a property of the plant rather than as a proximate response to the conditions of the day. No attempts to at least harvest the plants predawn were evident (see above for how turgid mass can be obtained, including extrapolation from pressure-volume curves). In this case, *Q*/*D* was multiplied by 1.1 (i.e., water content increased by 10%) to adjust for the error unless it was grown in hydroponics or water content exceeded 90% when any error would be small. For similar reasons, plants subjected to drought stress treatments were ignored.  In passing, we note that many species had leaves with a *Q*M of only 50% or less and wonder how successful the claims of turgid mass were. ### Files and variables #### File: Succulent\_ms\_1\_data\_.xlsx **Description:** leaf structural data for 8 plant species collected from the S Namib Desert. ##### Variables * (Q + D)/A = leaf mass at full turgor/leaf area (mg per mm2) * Q/A = leaf water content/ leaf area (mg per mm2) * z = leaf thickness (mm) * SLA = specific leaf area (mm2/mg) #### File: succulent\_graph.xlsx **Description:**  data for 277 species collated from 13 studies referenced in Lamont and Lamont 2025 ##### Variables * SLA = specific leaf area in mm2 per mg * Q/D = leaf water content at turgor/leaf dry mass ## Access information Data were derived from the following sources: * File 1 Lamont, BB and Lamont HC (2025) Contrasting water, dry matter and air contents distinguish orthophylls, sclerophylls and succophylls (leaf succulents). *Oecologia* (in press) * File 2 Barrera Zambrano V A, Lawson T, Olmos E, Fernández-García N, Borland AM (2014) Leaf anatomical traits which accommodate the facultative engagement of crassulacean acid metabolism in tropical trees of the genus *Clusia*. Journal of Experimental Botany 65: 3513–3523. Codignola A, Fieschi M, Maffei M, Fusconi A (1990) Leaf anatomy and photosynthetic characteristics of succulent alpine plants growing at high elevations. *Nordic Journal of Botany* 10:49–56. Codignola , Maffei M, Fusconi A. Fieschi M (1987) Leaf anatomy of alpine plants as related to altitudinal stress. *Nordic Journal of Botany* 7:673–685. Davy AJ, Scott R Cordazzo CV (2006) Biological flora of the British Isles: *Cakile *Scop. Journal of Ecology 94:695–711. de Vos AC, Broekman R, Groot MP, Rozema J (2010) Ecophysiological response of *Crambe maritima* to airborne and soil-borne salinity. Annals of Botany 105:925–937. Flach BMT and Eller BM (1994) Diurnal pattern of transpiration, water uptake and water budget of succulents with different CO2 fixation pathways. Botanica Acta 107:46–53. Garnier E, Laurent G (1994) Leaf anatomy, specific mass and water content in congeneric annual perennial grass species. New Phytologist 128:725–736. Gotsch SG, Williams CB, Bicaba R et al*.* (2022) Trade-offs between succulent and non-succulent epiphytes underlie variation in drought tolerance and avoidance. Oecologia 198:645–661. Grubb PJ, Marañón T, Pugnaire FI, Sack L (2015) Relationships between specific leaf area and leaf composition in succulent and non-succulent species of contrasting semi-desert communities in south-eastern Spain. Journal of Arid Environments 118:69–83. Guo B, Arndt S, Miller R, Lu N, Farrell C (2021) Are succulence or trait combinations related to plant survival on hot and dry green roofs? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 64:127248. Krasser D, Kalapos T (2000) Leaf water relations for 23 angiosperm species from steppe grasslands and associated habitats in Hungary. Community Ecology 1:123–131. Li S, Gou W, Wang H, White, J. F., Wu, G., and Su, P. (2021) Trade-off relationships of leaf functional traits of *Lycium ruthenicum* in response to soil properties in the lower reaches of Heihe river, Northwest China. Diversity 1:453. Lundholm J, Tran S, Gebert L (2015) Plant functional traits predict green roof ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Technology 49:2366–2374. Pyankov VI, Kondrachuk AV, Shipley B (1999) Leaf structure and specific leaf mass: the alpine desert plants of the Eastern Pasmirs, Tadjikistan. New Phytologist 143:131–142. Richards JH, Henn JJ Sorenson QM et al. (2021) Mistletoes and their eucalypt hosts differ in the response of leaf functional traits to climatic moisture supply. Oecologia 195:759–771.