| Literature DB >> 34956260 |
Yanyan Jiang1,2, Xiongqing Zhang1,2, Sophan Chhin3, Jianguo Zhang1.
Abstract
Age plays an important role in regulating the intra-annual changes in wood cell development. Investigating the effect of age on intra-annual wood cell development would help to understand cambial phenology and xylem formation dynamics of trees and predict the growth of trees accurately. Five intermediate trees in each stand (total of 5 stands) in five age groupings of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata Hook.) plantations in subtropical China were monitored on micro-cores collected weekly or biweekly from January to December in 2019. We modeled the dynamics of wood cell development with a mixed effects model, analyzed the age effect on intra-annual wood cell development, and explored the contribution of rate and duration of wood cell development on intra-annual wood cell development. We found a bimodal pattern of wood cell development in all age classes, and no matter the date of peak or the maximal number of cells the bimodal patterns were similar in all age classes. In addition, compared with the older trees, the younger trees had the longest duration of wood cell development because of the later end of wood cell development and a larger number of wood cells. The younger trees had the faster growth rate than the older trees, but the date of the maximal growth rate in older trees was earlier than younger trees, which led to the production of more wood cells in the younger trees. Moreover, we found that the number of cells in wood cell formation was mostly affected by the rate (92%) rather than the duration (8%) of wood cell formation.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese fir; age; bimodal pattern; microcores; wood cell development
Year: 2021 PMID: 34956260 PMCID: PMC8695768 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.757438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Age and size of the sampled trees.
| Planting year | Age (years) | Age classes | N (trees/ha) | DBH (cm) | H (m) | CA (m2) |
| 2012 | 8 | Young | 3,433 | 8.6 (0.46) | 6.7 (0.21) | 4.5 (1.00) |
| 2006 | 14 | Middle | 2,800 | 12.6 (0.43) | 12.8 (1.27) | 5.0 (1.57) |
| 2000 | 20 | Near-mature | 766 | 16.7 (0.31) | 13.6 (0.37) | 10.3 (2.81) |
| 1993 | 27 | Mature | 766 | 21.0 (0.39) | 13.6 (0.39) | 8.9 (1.19) |
| 1969 | 51 | Over-mature | 583 | 22.3 (0.74) | 16.7 (0.98) | 13.7 (1.58) |
The values in brackets are standard deviation values.
N, represents the stand density. DBH, represents the average diameter at breast height of five sampled trees in each stand. H, represents the average height of five sampled trees in each stand. CA, represents the average area of tree crown of five sampled trees in each stand.
Parameter estimates and their standard errors of the model for the number of cells produced during wood cell development of Chinese fir plantations using the Gompertz equation.
| Planting year | Parameter | Estimates | Std.error | df |
| |
| 2012 | A | 358.5 | 87.720 | 52 | 4.09 | 0.92 |
| k | 1.68 | 0.040 | 52 | 39.68 | ||
| t | 0.006 | 0.001 | 52 | 9.07 | ||
| 2006 | A | 116.4 | 20.56 | 73 | 5.66 | 0.89 |
| k | 1.46 | 0.040 | 73 | 34.26 | ||
| t | 0.007 | 0.001 | 73 | 9.10 | ||
| 2000 | A | 243.4 | 41.51 | 78 | 5.86 | 0.92 |
| k | 1.67 | 0.050 | 78 | 32.89 | ||
| t | 0.007 | 0.0008 | 78 | 8.88 | ||
| 1993 | A | 123.4 | 33.92 | 82 | 3.64 | 0.82 |
| k | 1.49 | 0.070 | 82 | 20.10 | ||
| t | 0.008 | 0.001 | 82 | 5.59 | ||
| 1969 | A | 94.7 | 25.780 | 84 | 3.68 | 0.76 |
| k | 1.38 | 0.080 | 84 | 17.49 | ||
| t | 0.008 | 0.0013 | 84 | 5.91 |
All p-values < 0.001.
Std.error, represents standard error. A, represents the asymptote parameter that determines the final number of cells reached at the end of the growing season. k, represents the growth-rate parameter that determines the spread of the curve along the time axis. t, represents the day of the year. df, represents degree of freedom.
Inflection points of different cell stages.
| Planting year | Cambium | Enlargement | Wall-thickening | Wall-thickening | |||||||
| Ft | Fb | St | Sb | Ft | Fb | St | Sb | t | b | ||
| DOY | 2012 | 51 (0) | 108 (0) | 151.2 (3.9) | 189.4 (5.2) | 108 (0) | 169.4 (5.9) | 236 (4) | 335.4 (9.5) | 191 (6.8) | 321.8 (8.8) |
| 2006 | 51 (0) | 101.2 (9.4) | 149.6 (3.2) | 186.8 (6.4) | 106 (4) | 163 (0) | 240 (7.5) | 337.8 (4.4) | 181.6 (5.2) | 327.6 (9.3) | |
| 2000 | 51 (0) | 91.6 (4.6) | 152.6 (6.1) | 189.4 (5.2) | 110 (4) | 166.4 (6.1) | 234 (4.9) | 335.6 (5.4) | 192.6 (7.7) | 306.8 (8.4) | |
| 1993 | 51 (0) | 95.8 (8.0) | 149.6 (3.2) | 186.8 (6.4) | 114 (4.9) | 164.6 (3.2) | 228 (8.9) | 337.6 (7.9) | 166.2 (3.9) | 306.8 (8.4) | |
| 1969 | 51 (0) | 94.4 (8.1) | 151 (7.9) | 192 (0) | 108 (6.3) | 164.8 (5.7) | 234 (4.9) | 335.6 (5.4) | 169.4 (7.8) | 325.4 (7.2) | |
| NC | 2012 | 7 (0.9) | 2.7 (0.5) | 6.3 (1.0) | 2.4 (0.3) | 12.7 (1.5) | 0.8 (0.9) | 6.3 (0) | 1.1 (0.8) | 8.0 (4.1) | 1.2 (1.7) |
| 2006 | 6.5 (2.1) | 1.8 (0.4) | 5 (1) | 2.2 (0.3) | 8.3 (1.1) | 3.4 (0.5) | 6 (2.4) | 2.0 (0.5) | 7.8 (2.0) | 0 (0) | |
| 2000 | 7.1 (0.8) | 1.7 (0.7) | 5.8 (0.4) | 2.7 (0.6) | 7.2 (2.0) | 1.5 (1.3) | 9.8 (3.5) | 0.3 (0.3) | 10.7 (1.8) | 0.8 (1.1) | |
| 1993 | 9 (2.5) | 1.9 (0.5) | 6 (0.8) | 1.9 (0.3) | 9 (1.1) | 3.4 (0.5) | 5.8 (0.7) | 1 (0.8) | 7.8 (0.8) | 0 (0) | |
| 1969 | 6.6 (1.5) | 1.5 (0.8) | 4.6 (0.5) | 2.2 (0.5) | 7.8 (1.1) | 2.6 (1) | 4.6 (0.2) | 0 (0.2) | 8.2 (5.6) | 0 (0) | |
The values in brackets are standard deviation values.
Ft, represents the first maximum. Fb, represents the first minimum. St, represents the second maximum. Sb, represents the second minimum. t, represents the maximum. b, represents the minimum. DOY, represents the day of the year in 2019. NC, represents the number of cells.
FIGURE 1Dynamics of different years of plantation establishment and aspects of wood cell development. (A) Cambial cells; (B) enlarging cells; (C) wall thickening cells; (D) total number of cells; (E) mature cells.
FIGURE 2Rate of wood cell development for stands with different planting years.
Characteristics of the rate of wood cell development.
| Planting year | Sample size | DOY | r-max | r-m | Onset | End | Duration |
| 2012 | 59 | 264.7 | 0.83 | 0.51 | 75.2 (4.4) | 318 (20.7) | 242.8 (24.7) |
| 2006 | 80 | 200.4 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 76.6 (7.2) | 315.8 (18.7) | 239.2 (17.6) |
| 2000 | 85 | 229.4 | 0.65 | 0.4 | 77.4 (5.6) | 306.2 (21.6) | 228.8 (22.5) |
| 1993 | 89 | 198.6 | 0.34 | 0.21 | 77.4 (5.4) | 298.4 (18.8) | 221 (13.8) |
| 1969 | 91 | 178.5 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 78.8 (7.4) | 290 (22.4) | 211.2 (26.2) |
The values in brackets are standard deviation.
DOY, represents the day of the year in 2019. r-max, represents the maximal rate of cell production. r-m, represents the average rate of cell production.
FIGURE 3Duration of wood cell development compared between stands of different planting years.
The summary results of ANOVA.
| df | Sum-Sq | Mean-Sq | |||
| Number | 1 | 9704.00 | 9704.00 | 10.58 | 0.004 |
| Onset | 1 | 29.60 | 29.60 | 0.73 | 0.401 |
| End | 1 | 2504.00 | 2504.10 | 5.35 | 0.030 |
| Duration | 1 | 3078.00 | 3077.80 | 5.99 | 0.023 |
| t-p | 1 | 23912.00 | 23912.00 | 41.56 | <0.001 |
| r-max | 1 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 15.11 | <0.001 |
| r-m | 1 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 15.15 | <0.001 |
Where p-value ≤ 0.05 indicates significant differences.
t-p, represents the time of the maximal rate of xylem cell formation. r-max, represents the maximal rate of xylem cell formation. r-m, represents the average rate of xylem cell formation. Df, represents the degree of freedom of one-way analysis of variance. Sum-Sq, represents sum of square. Mean-Sq, represents mean of square.
Parameter estimates of wood cell development linear model against rate and duration.
| value | |||
| Intercept | –56.36 | –2.58 | 0.019 |
| Rate | 397.28 | 13.6 | <0.001 |
| Duration | 0.19 | 1.95 | 0.067 |
p-value ≤ 0.05 indicates significant differences.