↓ Skip to main content

Non-destructive measurement of soybean leaf thickness via X-ray computed tomography allows the study of diel leaf growth rhythms in the third dimension

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Plant Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Non-destructive measurement of soybean leaf thickness via X-ray computed tomography allows the study of diel leaf growth rhythms in the third dimension
Published in
Journal of Plant Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10265-017-0967-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Pfeifer, Michael Mielewczik, Michael Friedli, Norbert Kirchgessner, Achim Walter

Abstract

Present-day high-resolution leaf growth measurements provide exciting insights into diel (24-h) leaf growth rhythms and their control by the circadian clock, which match photosynthesis with oscillating environmental conditions. However, these methods are based on measurements of leaf area or elongation and neglect diel changes of leaf thickness. In contrast, the influence of various environmental stress factors to which leaves are exposed to during growth on the final leaf thickness has been studied extensively. Yet, these studies cannot elucidate how variation in leaf area and thickness are simultaneously regulated and influenced on smaller time scales. Only few methods are available to measure the thickness of young, growing leaves non-destructively. Therefore, we evaluated X-ray computed tomography to simultaneously and non-invasively record diel changes and growth of leaf thickness and area. Using conventional imaging and X-ray computed tomography leaf area, thickness and volume growth of young soybean leaves were simultaneously and non-destructively monitored at three cardinal time points during night and day for a period of 80 h under non-stressful growth conditions. Reference thickness measurements on paperboards were in good agreement to CT measurements. Comparison of CT with leaf mass data further proved the consistency of our method. Exploratory analysis showed that measurements were accurate enough for recording and analyzing relative diel changes of leaf thickness, which were considerably different to those of leaf area. Relative growth rates of leaf area were consistently positive and highest during 'nights', while diel changes in thickness fluctuated more and were temporarily negative, particularly during 'evenings'. The method is suitable for non-invasive, accurate monitoring of diel variation in leaf volume. Moreover, our results indicate that diel rhythms of leaf area and thickness show some similarity but are not tightly coupled. These differences could be due to both intrinsic control mechanisms and different sensitivities to environmental factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 45%
Engineering 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,482,347
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Plant Research
#569
of 835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,440
of 317,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Plant Research
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.