4.5 Article

Bayesian analysis of Douglas-fir hydraulic architecture at multiple scales

Journal

TREES-STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 65-78

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00468-006-0097-8

Keywords

wood anatomy; Bayesian hierarchical modeling; hydraulic architecture; scale; xylem properties

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to analyze the variation in xylem anatomy, hydraulic properties, and the relationship between anatomy and properties within Douglas-fir trees. The hierarchical scales in our study included fertilization treatments (fertilized and unfertilized), trees within the treatments, and positions within the trees. We measured tracheid diameter, tracheid length, percent latewood, number of pits per cell, density, and specific conductivity (K-s) on seven positions in each of 16 fertilized and 16 unfertilized trees: the trunk at cambial age 52 (breast height), 25, and 5; a branch at cambial age 20 and 7; and a root at cambial age 42 and 22. Vulnerability to embolism was also measured on the oldest trunk, branch, and root positions. For any measurement, there was little variation between treatments, however, there was great variation among positions. Tracheid diameter, tracheid length, number of pits per cell, Ks, and vulnerability to embolism decreased vertically from the roots to the branches. Correlations were evident between some positions for tracheid diameter, percent earlywood, pits per cell, and vulnerability to embolism, mostly in the fertilized treatment. We found evidence for large-scale relationships (among all observations from all trees) between density and tracheid diameter, Ks and diameter, vulnerability and diameter, Ks and pits per cell, and vulnerability and pits per cell. At a smaller scale of within position, however, usually only the branches and roots maintained the relationship.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available