Sun foliages and shadiness foliages respond rather otherwise to their environment ( Goulet and Bellefleur 1986 ) . Sun leaves, comparative to shadow foliages, are thicker, heavier ( per unit country ) , smaller, lighter coloring material tone ( lighter green coloring material for illustration ) and have deeper fistulas. Light seems to play a major function in finding such features and whether a certain foliage is bound to hold a Sun foliage morphology or a shade foliage morphology ( Goulet and Bellefleur 1986 ) . One job that arises from such account is that can one detect such bold differences in leaf morphology in other species, or more specifically, are these morphological differences cosmopolitan to all tree.
These morphological differences should decidedly be cosmopolitan ; one must be able to detect the features of Sun foliages and shadiness foliages in indispensable all sorts of trees that have foliages. One manner to detect these alone features of foliages is to travel out and roll up many foliages of both sun features and shade features. Then do a more thorough rating of these foliages and rather perchance one will certainly detect many differences between Sun and shadiness foliages.
If sun foliages and sunglassess foliages do in fact have many differences so sun foliages should burden more than shadiness foliages because Sun foliages are thicker holding more photosynthetic cells. Sun leaves besides have a thicker waxy cuticle and hence must burden more than shadiness foliages in general ( Olaveson and Rush 2010 ) .
If these differences do be so shadow foliages should, in general, be larger because Sun foliages will hold more indenture to allow more light base on balls through to the shadiness leaves. Besides this will finally assist Sun foliages to disperse heat since Sun foliages are in direct sunshine because due to the more indenture, Sun foliages will hold a higher margin to come up country ratio ( Olaveson and Rush 2010 ) .
Materials and Method
Data presented in this study was obtained from 40 Sun foliages and 40 shadiness foliages of a Norway maple tree ( Acer platanoides L ) . In late September, an Acer platanoides L located on University of Toronto at Scarborough ( UTSC ) Science Wing terrace was chosen for this experimental survey. The tree size, noteworthy characteristics environing the tree and obvious foliage canopy were observed. Its foliages were examined in the lab at UTSC. General observations of the foliages were done such as its form, coloring material, texture and overall status. A more quantitative analyse of the foliage weight, length, breadth, margin, surface country and sinus country were besides done in the lab. Leaf weight was measured on a weighing graduated table, length and breadth were measured by an assistance of a swayer, the margin was measured by an assistance of a twine that was outlined around the foliage and surface country and sinus country were measured by following the foliage on a 1 cm2 graph paper. Using the quantitative informations, the form ratio ( weight / surface country ) and specific foliage weight ( sinus country / surface country ) was calculated for each foliage ( Olaveson and Rush 2010 ) . The informations were recorded and statistically analyzed utilizing Microsoft Excel.
An interesting facet of the survey were the tendencies in leaf size. The length and breadth of shadiness foliages are significantly greater than of Sun foliages ( Table 1 ) . This straight relates to the surface country of the foliages ; as such, shade foliages besides have a greater surface country so sun foliages on norm ( Figure 1 ) . The overall tendency with respects to the comparative size of the foliages is that length, breadth and surface country of shadiness foliages are greater so of Sun foliages ( Table 2 ) .
Related of the foliage size, shadiness foliages besides tend to burden more so Sun foliages on norm ( Figure 2 ) . In fact, there is a important difference in the average weight of the two types of foliages ( Table 2 ) . So the tendency for leaf weight is that as the light strength lessenings, the foliage weight increases consequently ; therefore shade foliages weight more.
The margin of the foliages in this survey did non supply any important consequences ( Table 1 ) . Although is there is a difference in the average margin of Sun and shadiness foliages, it finally leads to no alone tendency because this difference is really bantam. However, there is a difference so one can non disregard it nor can one do any decisions based on it ; therefore it provides no concrete support in this survey.
The consequences from the statistical trial in table 1 and table 2 clearly show that so length, breadth, surface country and weight of the Sun and shadiness foliages do in fact differ rather significantly ; on the contrary it shows that average margin of the Sun and shadiness foliages have no important difference.
Mean foliage form ratio of Sun foliages is greater than of shade foliages. The same can be said for the upper limit and the minimal values of the form ratios of both Sun and shadiness foliages. So by and large sun foliages have higher form ratio ( Table 3 ) . Another measure that was calculated in this survey was specific leaf weight ( SLW ) . On mean SLW for shadiness foliages was higher than sun foliages ; this makes sense because as mentioned earlier, shadiness foliages by and large have a higher weight and surface country as compared to sun foliages. So the general tendency outlined in table 3 is that Sun foliages have a higher form ratio while shadiness foliages have a higher SLW.
The length, breadth and surface country of shadiness foliages were found to be greater than Sun foliages. The same tendency was observed with respects to the weight ; shade leaves systematically weighted more than Sun foliages. So the tendency that as the light strength lessenings, the foliage weight and comparative size additions makes perfect sense ; because if a foliage is acquiring less light it will desire to do full usage of that light and therefore it must hold a larger surface country to absorb as much visible radiation as possible. Although the consequences for leaf length and width complies with our anticipation, the consequence for foliage weight nevertheless do non follow with our anticipation. These consequences besides seem to reflect the consequences from other similar surveies ( Goulet and Bellefleur 1986 ) . So clearly light strength is the chief cause for this phenomenon because basically that ‘s the lone status that changes among Sun and shadiness foliages due to their place on the tree ( Lei and Lechowicz 1998 ; Ashton et al. 1999 ) .
We encountered one job in this survey: the undistinguished consequences from the average margin of the foliages. As mentioned earlier it provided no important decisions. So a better manner to retroflex this survey would be to wholly extinguish margin and alternatively replace it with leaf coloring material strength. That will supply a better representation of the differences in Sun and shadiness foliages.
Mean foliage form ratio seemed to bespeak that every bit light strength additions so does the foliage form ratio. Again, this complies with our anticipation made earlier that Sun foliages have deeper fistulas ; and therefore more light is transferred to the shadiness leaves due to this and in bend shadiness foliages have shallow fistulas so more visible radiation is absorbed ( Beaudet and Messier 1998 ) .
Another measure that we calculated in this survey was SLW. On mean SLW for shadiness foliages was found to be higher than sun foliages ; this in declarative mood of the foliage thickness and we did so happen that shadiness foliages are thicker in comparing to sun foliages ( Olaveson and Rush 2010 ) .
In visible radiation of the consequences presented in this survey, our research epistasis is clearly support by our determination. Indeed there are many cardinal differences in Sun and shadiness foliages which result in the classification of such foliages as Sun or shadiness foliages based on its morphological features.