| Literature DB >> 27391424 |
Denise R Fernando1, Alan T Marshall2, Jonathan P Lynch3.
Abstract
Sugar maple andEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27391424 PMCID: PMC4938512 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157702
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Foliar elemental concentrations in dry weight (DWT) sugar maple (SM) and red maple (RM) leaves sampled at upslope (U) and downslope (D) positions.
| Tree no—Maple species/slope | Dry weight foliar elemental concentrations (mg kg-1DWT) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Na | Mg | Al | P | S | K | Ca | Mn | Cu | Fe | Zn | |
| 1-SM/U | 64 | < 10 | 700 | 39 | 2400 | 1800 | 6200 | 7400 | 4300 | 9 | 57 | 17 |
| 2-SM/U | 66 | < 10 | 700 | 41 | 1500 | 1500 | 8600 | 8600 | 3200 | 6 | 90 | 22 |
| 3-SM/D | 36 | < 10 | 1500 | 25 | 1300 | 1700 | 7100 | 9100 | 760 | 5 | 42 | 17 |
| 4-SM/D | 25 | < 10 | 1100 | 18 | 1400 | 1500 | 4600 | 9800 | 210 | 6 | 38 | 11 |
| 5-RM/U | 42 | < 10 | 2400 | 11 | 1500 | 1200 | 6100 | 8900 | 2600 | 9 | 38 | 23 |
| 6-RM/U | 48 | < 10 | 1800 | 17 | 1600 | 1200 | 6500 | 7900 | 1200 | 11 | 66 | 37 |
| 7-RM/D | 33 | < 10 | 1300 | 8 | 1400 | 1100 | 6700 | 6100 | 390 | 5 | 34 | 21 |
| 8-RM/D | 32 | < 10 | 1600 | 8 | 1300 | 1100 | 6200 | 6500 | 730 | 3 | 48 | 32 |
Mean leaf adaxial surface disruption for duplicate sugar maple (SM) and red maple (RM) trees sampled at upslope (U) and downslope (D) positions.
| Maple species/slope | n leaves | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| SM/U | 83 | 7.74 ± 1.91 |
| SM/D | 88 | 4.57 ± 1.97 |
| RM/U | 71 | 9.54 ± 1.20 |
| RM/D | 121 | 7.95 ± 1.63 |
* Calculated as reverse arcsin-transformed data
Fig 1Light micrographs of upslope (above) and downslope (below) sugar (LHS) and red (RHS) maple leaf cross-sections. Upper epidermal (ue), palisade (p), spongy mesophyll (sm) and lower epidermal (le) labels and scale bar apply to all images.
Fig 2Secondary electron images (SEI) in the top horizontal panel, with corresponding colour-coded X-ray maps directly below, showing in vivo O and Ca-K maps in the two panels below.
Leaf cross sections were taken from the following trees: (a) sugar maple uplsope (SM/U), tree no.1 in Table 1; (b) sugar maple downslope (SM/D), tree no. 3 in Table 1; c) red maple upslope (RM/U), tree no. 5 in Table 1; and d) red maple downslope (RM/D), tree no. 8 in Table 1. Upper epidermis at RHS in (a), (c) and (d), below in (b).
Fig 5X-ray intensity profiles for Mn, Mg and S along transect lines taken through leaf cross sections as depicted in the SEM images corresponding to frames a, b, c, and d in Figs 1–4.
Data are collected to the lateral boundaries marked on either side of the central line. For the largest Mn peak in each frame, weight % Mn concentrations have been converted to mmol/kg as a guide. Notation: ue = upper epidermis.
Fig 4Secondary electron images (SEI) in the top horizontal panel (same sample as in Figs 2 and 3), with corresponding colour-coded X-ray maps directly below, showin in vivo S, and Mg maps in the two panels below.
Mean vacuolar Mg, S and Mn concentrations in upslope sugar maple (SM/U) and upslope red maple (RM/U) leaves.
| Maple species/slope | Leaf cell vacuolar elemental concentrations (mmoles/kg of embedded tissue) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cell type (n) | Mg | se | S | se | Mn | se | |
| SM/U | ue (6) | 20.6 | 5.0 | 77.9 | 12.7 | 173.0 | 47.1 |
| SM/U | p (4) | 8.2 | 2.1 | 21.8 | 3.1 | 32.8 | 6.2 |
| RM/U | ue (5) | 230.5 | 20.2 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 47.4 | 4.2 |
| RM/U | p (5) | 148.1 | 12.9 | 18.7 | 2.8 | 41.9 | 8.4 |
| RM/U | sm (7) | 70.0 | 6.2 | 24.9 | 3.5 | 85.6 | 11.8 |
| RM/U | le (5) | 177.0 | 23.9 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 54.6 | 12.5 |
Cell-type notation: upper epidermis (ue), palisade mesophyll (p), spongy mesophyll (sm), lower epidermis (le).
Fig 6X-ray mapping data from Figs 2–4 combined here to highlight differences in multi-elemental co-deposition patterns in: a) SM/U, b) SM/D, c) RM/U, d) RM/D.