4.7 Article

Generalized additive models reveal the intrinsic complexity of wood formation dynamics

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 1983-1994

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ert057

关键词

Cambial activity; conifers; generalized linear and additive models (GLMs and GAMs); Gompertz functions (GFs); timing of cell development; tree ring; wood formation; xylogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intra-annual dynamics of wood formation, which involves the passage of newly produced cells through three successive differentiation phases (division, enlargement, and wall thickening) to reach the final functional mature state, has traditionally been described in conifers as three delayed bell-shaped curves followed by an S-shaped curve. Here the classical view represented by the Gompertz function (GF) approach was challenged using two novel approaches based on parametric generalized linear models (GLMs) and data-driven generalized additive models (GAMs). These three approaches (GFs, GLMs, and GAMs) were used to describe seasonal changes in cell numbers in each of the xylem differentiation phases and to calculate the timing of cell development in three conifer species [Picea abies (L.), Pinus sylvestris L., and Abies alba Mill.]. GAMs outperformed GFs and GLMs in describing intra-annual wood formation dynamics, showing two left-skewed bell-shaped curves for division and enlargement, and a right-skewed bimodal curve for thickening. Cell residence times progressively decreased through the season for enlargement, whilst increasing late but rapidly for thickening. These patterns match changes in cell anatomical features within a tree ring, which allows the separation of earlywood and latewood into two distinct cell populations. A novel statistical approach is presented which renews our understanding of xylogenesis, a dynamic biological process in which the rate of cell production interplays with cell residence times in each developmental phase to create complex seasonal patterns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据