Additional info:

Additional info:

Additional info:

Additional info:

Additional info:

Additional info:

Remarks:
Estimating RubisCO is very complicated and the quality of the data depends on: 1 Extractibilty of proteins from the leaves, separation of proteins as bands by SDS-Gel electrophoresis, quality of the gel runs including the standard curve, quantification of the bands by densitometry.
N-content of RubisCO: There are almost no data in the literature. Known amino acid sequences of 4 RubisCO Large Subunit (which was quantified) were aligned and from the amino acids the average N-content was calculated. RubisCO Small Subunit : RubisCO Large Subunit = 1 : 1. From the amino acid  sequences of the RubisCO Small Subunit the average N-content was calculated. N-contents of both subunits yields the N-content of RubisCO. 
Further errors can originate from weighting of the samples and determination of the Dry Weight. 
Estimating chlorophyll is technically easier, but chlorophyll extractibility depends a lot on the leaf structure and chemical constituents of the leaves which could destroy the light sensible chlorophyll molecule once it is released from the chloroplasts. 
Chlorophyll was determined as chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b and the values in the table is the total chlorophyll content (Chl a + b) on a Dry Weight basis. The ratio is a rough measure of antenna chlorophyll because chl b occurs only in the antrennas while chl a is antenna + reaction center. 
RubisCO and chlorophyll: Each leaf sample was investigated in triplicate and where SD is given in the Table, the values are averages of the three parallels. For the amount of RubisCO, SD cannot be determined as the value was upscaled from the RubisCO Large Subunit. The same holds for the N-content of RubisCO. N-Contents of the leaves were provided by Jürgen Homeier. Red numbers indicate questionable data. From the few examples in theliterature (public data bases) a rough estimation of the portion of the N-content of RubiCO is around 40% of the leaf-N, but depending on the field situation (the literature data are from laboratory experiments) the shares may vary. I indicated shares of higher than 60% as questionable (in red); the same holds for chlorophyll contents lower than 2 mg/g DW, although senescent or very hard leaves could show a unusal low chlorophyll content.    

Is there a tendeny of RubisCO-N with PFT or altitude? I would say NO! Also not with the Chl a/b ratio (what could make sense).

Additional info:

Additional info:

Additional info: