4.2 Article

Chronic in situ tissue cooling does not reduce lignification at the Swiss treeline but enhances the risk of 'blue' frost rings

期刊

ALPINE BOTANY
卷 133, 期 1, 页码 63-67

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00035-023-00293-6

关键词

Alpine treeline; Cell wall; Conifers; Freezing tolerance; Histology; Lignin; Low temperature; Wood anatomy; Xylogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a 2013 paper, Lenz et al. investigated the effects of chronic warming or cooling on trees growing at the low-temperature limit. They found that a 3 K cooling did not impact lignification at treeline, but when a frost event occurred during early ring formation, the cooling resulted in a non-lignified layer of cells followed by normally lignified cells. This suggests that chronic cooling does not affect lignification but increases the risk of frost damage in premature xylem tissue.
In their 2013 paper, Lenz et al. illustrated how trees growing at the low-temperature limit respond to a chronic in situ warming or cooling by 3 K, by employing Peltier-thermostated branch collars that tracked ambient temperatures. The micro-coring-based analysis of seasonal tree ring formation included double-staining microtome cross sections for lignification, but these data had not been included in the publication. In this short communication, we complement these data, collected in 2009 at the Swiss treeline, and we show that a 3 K cooling that corresponds to a 500-600 m higher elevation, had no influence on lignification. However, when a frost event occurred during the early part of ring formation, the 3 K cooling produced a blue (non-lignified) layer of cells, followed by normally lignified cells for the rest of the season. Hence, the event did not affect the cambium, but interrupted cell wall maturation in cells that were in a critical developmental stage. We conclude, that chronic cooling does not affect lignification at treeline, but it increases the risk of frost damage in premature xylem tissue.

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

4.2
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