Upscaling xylem phenology: sample size matters.
Abies balsamea
Boreal forest
carbon allocation
cell production
tree growth
tree size
wood formation
xylem development
xylem differentiation
xylogenesis
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 12 2022
16 12 2022
Historique:
received:
10
08
2022
accepted:
25
08
2022
pubmed:
27
8
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
entrez:
26
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Upscaling carbon allocation requires knowledge of the variability at the scales at which data are collected and applied. Trees exhibit different growth rates and timings of wood formation. However, the factors explaining these differences remain undetermined, making samplings and estimations of the growth dynamics a complicated task, habitually based on technical rather than statistical reasons. This study explored the variability in xylem phenology among 159 balsam firs [Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.]. Wood microcores were collected weekly from April to October 2018 in a natural stand in Quebec, Canada, to detect cambial activity and wood formation timings. We tested spatial autocorrelation, tree size and cell production rates as explanatory variables of xylem phenology. We assessed sample size and margin of error for wood phenology assessment at different confidence levels. Xylem formation lasted between 40 and 110 d, producing between 12 and 93 cells. No effect of spatial proximity or size of individuals was detected on the timings of xylem phenology. Trees with larger cell production rates showed a longer growing season, starting xylem differentiation earlier and ending later. A sample size of 23 trees produced estimates of xylem phenology at a confidence level of 95 % with a margin of error of 1 week. This study highlighted the high variability in the timings of wood formation among trees within an area of 1 km2. The correlation between the number of new xylem cells and the growing season length suggests a close connection between the processes of wood formation and carbon sequestration. However, the causes of the observed differences in xylem phenology remain partially unresolved. We point out the need to carefully consider sample size when assessing xylem phenology to explore the reasons underlying this variability and to allow reliable upscaling of carbon allocation in forests.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Upscaling carbon allocation requires knowledge of the variability at the scales at which data are collected and applied. Trees exhibit different growth rates and timings of wood formation. However, the factors explaining these differences remain undetermined, making samplings and estimations of the growth dynamics a complicated task, habitually based on technical rather than statistical reasons. This study explored the variability in xylem phenology among 159 balsam firs [Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.].
METHODS
Wood microcores were collected weekly from April to October 2018 in a natural stand in Quebec, Canada, to detect cambial activity and wood formation timings. We tested spatial autocorrelation, tree size and cell production rates as explanatory variables of xylem phenology. We assessed sample size and margin of error for wood phenology assessment at different confidence levels.
KEY RESULTS
Xylem formation lasted between 40 and 110 d, producing between 12 and 93 cells. No effect of spatial proximity or size of individuals was detected on the timings of xylem phenology. Trees with larger cell production rates showed a longer growing season, starting xylem differentiation earlier and ending later. A sample size of 23 trees produced estimates of xylem phenology at a confidence level of 95 % with a margin of error of 1 week.
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlighted the high variability in the timings of wood formation among trees within an area of 1 km2. The correlation between the number of new xylem cells and the growing season length suggests a close connection between the processes of wood formation and carbon sequestration. However, the causes of the observed differences in xylem phenology remain partially unresolved. We point out the need to carefully consider sample size when assessing xylem phenology to explore the reasons underlying this variability and to allow reliable upscaling of carbon allocation in forests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36018569
pii: 6677274
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcac110
pmc: PMC9758298
doi:
Substances chimiques
Carbon
7440-44-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
811-824Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Dec 26;7:1923
pubmed: 28082994
BMC Plant Biol. 2014 Sep 28;14:256
pubmed: 25260963
Tree Physiol. 2017 Nov 1;37(11):1554-1563
pubmed: 28985379
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015 Jun;25:107-14
pubmed: 26037389
Front Plant Sci. 2018 Jan 12;8:2264
pubmed: 29379517
Ecol Lett. 2005 Nov;8(11):1183-90
pubmed: 21352442
Ann Bot. 2008 Nov;102(5):667-74
pubmed: 18708643
Nat Plants. 2015 Oct 26;1:15160
pubmed: 27251531
J Exp Bot. 2012 Mar;63(5):2117-26
pubmed: 22174441
Plant Physiol. 2016 Apr;170(4):2072-84
pubmed: 26850274
Tree Physiol. 2013 May;33(5):516-26
pubmed: 23604743
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Apr;42(4):1222-1232
pubmed: 30326549
Front Plant Sci. 2016 May 26;7:734
pubmed: 27303426
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Mar 23;7:370
pubmed: 27047534
New Phytol. 2016 Jul;211(2):386-403
pubmed: 27061438
Plant Cell Environ. 2010 Oct;33(10):1721-30
pubmed: 20525004
Ann Bot. 2019 Jul 8;123(7):1257-1265
pubmed: 30873532
Tree Physiol. 2013 Jan;33(1):48-56
pubmed: 23185065
Tree Physiol. 2007 Mar;27(3):463-73
pubmed: 17241988
Ann Bot. 2011 Sep;108(3):429-38
pubmed: 21816842
New Phytol. 2010 Aug;187(3):819-30
pubmed: 20497351
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Aug 25;117(34):20645-20652
pubmed: 32759218
Tree Physiol. 2009 Jan;29(1):27-38
pubmed: 19203930
Tree Physiol. 2009 Dec;29(12):1525-36
pubmed: 19801556
Front Plant Sci. 2020 Aug 14;11:1268
pubmed: 32922430
Tree Physiol. 2009 Oct;29(10):1223-35
pubmed: 19696052
New Phytol. 2008;177(1):199-208
pubmed: 17944824
Nature. 2000 Nov 9;408(6809):233-8
pubmed: 11089980
Glob Chang Biol. 2016 Nov;22(11):3804-3813
pubmed: 27082838
Science. 2011 Aug 19;333(6045):988-93
pubmed: 21764754
Oecologia. 2007 Jan;150(4):529-44
pubmed: 16983553
Am J Bot. 2019 Oct;106(10):1386-1391
pubmed: 31529807
Tree Physiol. 2014 Jan;34(1):87-93
pubmed: 24353085
J Exp Bot. 2013 Apr;64(7):1983-94
pubmed: 23530132
Tree Physiol. 2016 Jul;36(7):847-55
pubmed: 27126226