Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communications Arising
  • Published:

Biological scaling

Does the exception prove the rule? (Reply)

Abstract

Enquist et al.1 raise several points that they claim cast doubt on our findings and interpretation2 regarding whole-plant relations of respiration, R, with plant mass, M, and total plant nitrogen content, N. We agree with Enquist et al. that R does not scale isometrically with M across all plants. However, their assertion that we claim that isometric scaling (R Mθ, with θ = 1) is universal in plants of all sizes is incorrect — in fact, we conclude the opposite2, noting that there is isometric scaling within individual experiments, non-isometric scaling of respiration versus mass across all data pooled, and no common relation across all data2.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Evidence for positive carbon balance across all plant sizes.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Enquist, B. J. et al. Nature 445, doi:10.1038/nature05548 (2007).

  2. Reich, P. B., Tjoelker, M. G., Machado, J.-L. & Oleksyn, J. Nature 439, 457–461 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. Nature 400, 664–667 (1999).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kozłowski, J. & Konarzewski, M. Funct. Ecol. 19, 739–743 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mäkelä, A. & Valentine, H. T. Ecology 87, 2967–2972 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Enquist, B. J. et al. Nature 423, 639–642 (2003).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Field, C. & Mooney, H. A. in On the Economy of Plant Form and Function (ed. Givnish, T. J.) 25–55 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ryan, M. G. Ecol. Appl. 1, 157–167 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright, I. J. et al. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mencuccini, M. Plant Cell Envir. 26, 163–182 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Meinzer, F. C., Bond, B. J., Warren, J. M. & Woodruff, D. R. Funct. Ecol. 19, 558–565 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Glazier, D. S. BioScience 56, 325–332 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter B. Reich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reich, P., Tjoelker, M., Machado, JL. et al. Does the exception prove the rule? (Reply). Nature 445, E10–E11 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05549

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05549

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing