↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative Wood Anatomy—Practical Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 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
Quantitative Wood Anatomy—Practical Guidelines
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00781
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georg von Arx, Alan Crivellaro, Angela L. Prendin, Katarina Čufar, Marco Carrer

Abstract

Quantitative wood anatomy analyzes the variability of xylem anatomical features in trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species to address research questions related to plant functioning, growth, and environment. Among the more frequently considered anatomical features are lumen dimensions and wall thickness of conducting cells, fibers, and several ray properties. The structural properties of each xylem anatomical feature are mostly fixed once they are formed, and define to a large extent its functionality, including transport and storage of water, nutrients, sugars, and hormones, and providing mechanical support. The anatomical features can often be localized within an annual growth ring, which allows to establish intra-annual past and present structure-function relationships and its sensitivity to environmental variability. However, there are many methodological challenges to handle when aiming at producing (large) data sets of xylem anatomical data. Here we describe the different steps from wood sample collection to xylem anatomical data, provide guidance and identify pitfalls, and present different image-analysis tools for the quantification of anatomical features, in particular conducting cells. We show that each data production step from sample collection in the field, microslide preparation in the lab, image capturing through an optical microscope and image analysis with specific tools can readily introduce measurement errors between 5 and 30% and more, whereby the magnitude usually increases the smaller the anatomical features. Such measurement errors-if not avoided or corrected-may make it impossible to extract meaningful xylem anatomical data in light of the rather small range of variability in many anatomical features as observed, for example, within time series of individual plants. Following a rigid protocol and quality control as proposed in this paper is thus mandatory to use quantitative data of xylem anatomical features as a powerful source for many research topics.

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 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 4 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 374 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 69 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 17%
Student > Master 62 16%
Student > Bachelor 27 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 91 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 124 32%
Environmental Science 90 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 5%
Engineering 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 1%
Other 24 6%
Unknown 111 29%
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 21 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,692,916
of 25,204,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,498
of 24,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,596
of 347,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#71
of 522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,204,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,228 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 347,083 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.