4.6 Article

Anatomical differences in the structural elements of fluid passage of Scots pine sapwood with contrasting treatability

期刊

WOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 435-447

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00226-014-0619-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Northern Periphery Programme
  2. National Science Foundation, USA [IBN 09-19871]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatability of wood is a function of anatomical properties developed under certain growing conditions. While Scots pine sapwood material normally is considered as easy to impregnate, great variations in treatability can be observed. In order to study anatomical differences in the structural elements of transverse fluid passage, wood material with contrasting treatability has been compared. Ray composition and resin canal network, membrane areas of fenestriform pits in the cross-field as well as dimension and properties of bordered pits were investigated. The results showed large anatomical differences between the two contrasting treatability groups. Refractory Scots pine sapwood samples developed more rays per mm(2) tangential section, while they were on average lower in cell numbers than rays found in easily treatable material. Easily treatable material had more parenchyma cells in rays than refractory material. At the same time, a larger membrane area in fenestriform pits in the cross-field was observed in the easily treatable sample fraction. Differences in the composition of resin canal network were not observed. Refractory samples developed on average smaller bordered pit features, with relatively small formed pit apertures compared to the easily treatable samples. In refractory Scots pine sapwood material, the structural elements of fluid passage such as bordered pit dimensions, fenestriform pits in the cross-field and parenchyma cells were altogether developed in smaller dimensions or number. Wood samples from better growing conditions and sufficient water supply showed a better treatability in this study.

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

4.6
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