4.7 Review

Distilling allometric and environmental information from time series of conduit size: the standardization issue and its relationship to tree hydraulic architecture

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 27-33

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpu108

关键词

cell chronology; dendrochronology; signal versus noise; tree-ring anatomy; wood anatomy; xylem hydraulic response

类别

资金

  1. Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation, SERI [SBFI C12.0100]
  2. University of Padua [D320.PRGR13001]
  3. COST Action STReESS [FP 1106]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trees are among the best natural archives of past environmental information. Xylem anatomy preserves information related to tree allometry and ecophysiological performance, which is not available from the more customary ring-width or wood-density proxy parameters. Recent technological advances make tree-ring anatomy very attractive because time frames of many centuries can now be covered. This calls for the proper treatment of time series of xylem anatomical attributes. In this article, we synthesize current knowledge on the biophysical and physiological mechanisms influencing the short- to long-term variation in the most widely used wood-anatomical feature, namely conduit size. We also clarify the strong mechanistic link between conduit-lumen size, tree hydraulic architecture and height growth. Among the key consequences of these biophysical constraints is the pervasive, increasing trend of conduit size during ontogeny. Such knowledge is required to process time series of anatomical parameters correctly in order to obtain the information of interest. An appropriate standardization procedure is fundamental when analysing long tree-ring-related chronologies. When dealing with wood-anatomical parameters, this is even more critical. Only an interdisciplinary approach involving ecophysiology, wood anatomy and dendrochronology will help to distill the valuable information about tree height growth and past environmental variability correctly.

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