↓ Skip to main content

Crown traits of coniferous trees and their relation to shade tolerance can differ with leaf type: a biophysical demonstration using computed tomography scanning data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Crown traits of coniferous trees and their relation to shade tolerance can differ with leaf type: a biophysical demonstration using computed tomography scanning data
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre Dutilleul, Liwen Han, Fernando Valladares, Christian Messier

Abstract

Plant light interception and shade tolerance are intrinsically related in that they involve structural, morphological and physiological adaptations to manage light capture for photosynthetic utilization, in order to sustain survival, development and reproduction. At the scale of small-size trees, crown traits related to structural geometry of branching pattern and space occupancy through phyllotaxis can be accurately evaluated in 3D, using computed tomography (CT) scanning data. We demonstrate this by scrutinizing the crowns of 15 potted miniature conifers of different species or varieties, classified in two groups based on leaf type (10 needlelike, 5 scalelike); we also test whether mean values of crown traits measured from CT scanning data and correlations with a shade tolerance index (STI) differ between groups. Seven crown traits, including fractal dimensions (FD1: smaller scales, FD2: larger scales) and leaf areas, were evaluated for all 15 miniature conifers; an average silhouette-to-total-area ratio was also calculated for each of the 10 needlelike-leaf conifers. Between-group differences in mean values are significant (P < 0.05) for STI, FD1, FD2, and the average leaf area displayed (ĀD). Between-group differences in sign and strength of correlations are observed. For example, the correlation between STI and FD1 is negative and significant (P < 0.10) for the needlelike-leaf group, but is positive and significant (P < 0.05) for the miniature conifers with scalelike leaves, which had lower STI and higher FD1 on average in our study; the positive correlation between STI and ĀD is significant (P < 0.05) for the scalelike-leaf group, and very moderate for the needlelike-leaf one. A contrasting physical attachment of the leaves to branches may explain part of the between-group differences. Our findings open new avenues for the understanding of fundamental plant growth processes; the information gained could be included in a multi-scale approach to tree crown modeling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 39%
Environmental Science 7 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 37%
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 25 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,751,741
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#11,969
of 20,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,046
of 263,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#160
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,079 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 263,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.