prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2020 str. 32     <-- 32 -->        PDF

distance between the midvien and the left and right curvatures were used for leaf composite index calculation:
                FALEAF = ∑(lnRi-lnLi)/n)          (1)
with i = as a distance between the midvien and the left and right curvatures for every axis, n = 6. The leaf composite index FALEAF presents the size-scale indicator of developmental instability of a whole leaf.
The observed procrustes coordinates (MorphoJ software package, procedure Covariance Matrix Generate and Principal Components Analysis application) enabled analysis of leaf shape differences between the analyzed localities. The graphically visualized leaf shape variation were present with wireframe diagrams The leaf centroid size (CS) were obtained too (Klingenberg, 2011).
We employed a Procrustes variance analyses (Klingenberg, 2016) to estimate statistically significant differences between habitats (fixed effect), trees (nested in habitat; random effect) and leaves (nested in habitat and trees; random effect) as source variations for centroid size and shape as a dependent variable (Palmer, 1994; Klingenberg and McIntyre, 1998; Klingenberg, 2003; Savriama and Klingenberg, 2011). The graphicalpatterns of leaf shape variation were constructed employing the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The Canonical Analysis Variant (CVA) was used to create a visual display of shape differences between popula­tions. The digital images were used in Image tools program to determine the surface area of each leaf.
Each leaf was dried at 70°C degrees 48 h, then the weight of the dry leaf mass was measured (balance Chyo JL-200). The obtained surface area and mass leaf values were used to assess the specific leaf area (SLA) the ratio of the leaf area to the dry mass (cm2/mg).
2.3. Statistical analysis
The differences among habitats in centroid size, leaf shape, developmental stability (FALEAF), SLA and petiole lenght were tested withANOVA, in SAS statistical package (SAS Institute, Inc. 2011). The habitat used in the model was set as a fixed factor (evaluation of environmental variability), while trees nested within habitat (evaluation of intra-population variability) and leaves nested in trees and populations (evaluation of intra-individual variability) were set as random factors.
The obtained results of the applied Procrustes ANOVA model showed that the geometric size of the leaf (centroid size) and shape of leaf differ between habitats (a significant impact of the habitat) (P < 0.05) (Table 1).
The results obtained for morphological traits (SLA and petiole lenght) did not differ statistically significantly between habitats (all P > 0.05). Intraindividual variability of the values was statistically significant among the individual trees (P < 0.05), which indicates an existence of genetic variability for the analysed traits (Table 2). The composite index of fluctuating asymmetry FALEAF was not statistically significant among habitats, indicating that the conditions in the flooding compared to the non-flooding habitat did not lead