Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40012731›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025

Quantitative vessel mapping on increment cores: a critical comparison of image acquisition methods.

Richard L Peters, Stefan Klesse, Jan Van den Bulcke, Lisa M Y Jourdain, Georg von Arx, Alba Anadon-Rosell, Jan Krejza, Ansgar Kahmen, Marina Fonti, Angela Luisa Prendin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Richard L PetersTree Growth and Wood Physiology, TUM School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany.
Stefan KlesseSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Jan Van den BulckeLaboratory of Wood Technology (UGent-Woodlab), Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Lisa M Y JourdainSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Georg von ArxSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Alba Anadon-RosellCREAF, Catalonia, Spain.
Jan KrejzaGlobal Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CzechGlobe), Brno, Czechia.
Ansgar KahmenDepartment of Environmental Sciences - Botany, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Marina FontiSwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Angela Luisa PrendinDepartment of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padua, Legnaro, PD, Italy.
Flurin BabstSchool of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Tom De MilForest Is Life, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro Bio-Tech, University of Liège, Gembloux, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Quantitative wood anatomy is critical for establishing climate reconstruction proxies, understanding tree hydraulics, and quantifying carbon allocation. Its accuracy depends upon the image acquisition methods, which allows for the identification of the number and dimensions of vessels, fibres, and tracheids within a tree ring. Angiosperm wood is analysed with a variety of different image acquisition methods, including surface pictures, wood anatomical micro-sections, or X-ray computed micro-tomography. Despite known advantages and disadvantages, the quantitative impact of method selection on wood anatomical parameters is not well understood. Methods: In this study, we present a systematic uncertainty analysis of the impact of the image acquisition method on commonly used anatomical parameters. We analysed four wood samples, representing a range of wood porosity, using surface pictures, micro-CT scans, and wood anatomical micro-sections. Inter-annual patterns were analysed and compared between methods from the five most frequently used parameters, namely mean lumen area ( Results: Our quantitative vessel mapping revealed that values obtained for hydraulic wood anatomical parameters are comparable across different methods, supporting the use of easily applicable surface picture methods for ring-porous and specific diffuse-porous tree species. While intra-annual variability is well captured by the different methods across species, wood density ( Discussion: Our study highlights the potential and limitations of different image acquisition methods for extracting wood anatomical parameters. Moreover, we present a standardized workflow for assessing radial tree ring profiles. These findings encourage the compilation of all studies using wood anatomical parameters and further research to refine these methods, ultimately enhancing the accuracy, replication, and spatial representation of wood anatomical studies.

Indexed as

angiospermsbroad-leaved speciesinter-and intra-annual variabilityquantitative wood anatomyradial profileuncertainty analysisx-ray CT scanningxylem porosity

Identifiers

PMID40012731
PMCPMC11863283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.