4.7 Article

Electrical resistivity tomography: patterns in Betula pendula, Fagus sylvatica, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris

Journal

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 7, Pages 1262-1271

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpz052

Keywords

Betula pendula; electrical resistivity tomography; electrolyte content; Fagus sylvatica; moisture content; Picea abies; Pinus sylvestris; wood density

Categories

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P29896-B22]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P29896] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electrical resistivity (ER) tomography is a promising technique to minimally invasively study stems of living trees. It allows insights into xylem properties based on the cross-sectional distribution of ER that is governed by the wood's electrical conductance. In this study, ER measurements were carried out on four forest tree species, Betula pendula, Fagus sylvatica, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris, to demonstrate interspecific, intraspecific and within-tree variation of ER tomograms. Further, ER patterns were linked to xylem moisture content (MC), electrolyte content and density obtained from wood core analyses. The ER patterns of both coniferous species, P. abies and P. sylvestris, were found to be more homogenous and concentric compared with the complex tomograms of angiosperms. However, the ER range of coniferous trees showed considerable intraspecific variation. Measurements near ground level showed pronounced effects on ER tomograms, highlighting the importance of the chosen measurement height. A strong relation between ER and wood density was found in F. sylvatica while ER patterns of conifers were mainly influenced by MC. Results demonstrate a high species specificity of ER tomograms and of respective influencing xylem traits. They underline the importance of reference measurements for a correct interpretation of ER studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available