↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Conifer Ray Parenchyma for Ecological Studies: Pitfalls and Guidelines

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Assessing Conifer Ray Parenchyma for Ecological Studies: Pitfalls and Guidelines
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.01016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georg von Arx, Alberto Arzac, José M. Olano, Patrick Fonti

Abstract

Ray parenchyma is an essential tissue for tree functioning and survival. This living tissue plays a major role for storage and transport of water, nutrients, and non-structural carbohydrates (NSC), thus regulating xylem hydraulics and growth. However, despite the importance of rays for tree carbon and water relations, methodological challenges hamper knowledge about ray intra- and inter-tree variability and its ecological meaning. In this study we provide a methodological toolbox for soundly quantifying spatial and temporal variability of different ray features. Anatomical ray features were surveyed in different cutting planes (cross-sectional, tangential, and radial) using quantitative image analysis on stem-wood micro-sections sampled from 41 mature Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris). The percentage of ray surface (PERPAR), a proxy for ray volume, was compared among cutting planes and between early- and latewood to assess measurement-induced variability. Different tangential ray metrics were correlated to assess their similarities. The accuracy of cross-sectional and tangential measurements for PERPAR estimates as a function of number of samples and the measured wood surface was assessed using bootstrapping statistical technique. Tangential sections offered the best 3D insight of ray integration into the xylem and provided the most accurate estimates of PERPAR, with 10 samples of 4 mm(2) showing an estimate within ±6.0% of the true mean PERPAR (relative 95% confidence interval, CI95), and 20 samples of 4 mm(2) showing a CI95 of ±4.3%. Cross-sections were most efficient for establishment of time series, and facilitated comparisons with other widely used xylem anatomical features. Earlywood had significantly lower PERPAR (5.77 vs. 6.18%) and marginally fewer initiating rays than latewood. In comparison to tangential sections, PERPAR was systematically overestimated (6.50 vs. 4.92%) and required approximately twice the sample area for similar accuracy. Radial cuttings provided the least accurate PERPAR estimates. This evaluation of ray parenchyma in conifers and the presented guidelines regarding data accuracy as a function of measured wood surface and number of samples represent an important methodological reference for ray quantification, which will ultimately improve the understanding of the fundamental role of ray parenchyma tissue for the performance and survival of trees growing in stressed environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 74 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 39%
Environmental Science 18 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 March 2023.
All research outputs
#8,515,515
of 25,476,463 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#5,540
of 24,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,853
of 393,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#68
of 345 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,476,463 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,727 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 393,093 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 345 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.