Login

Join for Free!
118903 members
table of contents table of contents

A comparison of three methods used to estimate the stomatal density of …


Biology Articles » Botany » A comparison of three methods for determining the stomatal density of pine needles » Tables

Tables
- A comparison of three methods for determining the stomatal density of pine needles

....................................................................................................

Table 1. The stomatal density of each species measured from a dissecting scope, SEM, and light microscope. Numbers in parentheses are the standard errors.

Species

Dissecting scope

SEM

Light microscope

P. taeda 109.64 (6.93) 113.55 (8.47) 114.64 (10.51)
P. ponderosa 56.13 (3.91) 55.41 (6.06) 52.11 (3.35)

....................................................................................................


Table 2. Stomatal densities of pine needles determined from three methods: scanning electron microscopy (SDsem), maceration (SDlm), and dissecting light microscope (SDij). SDlm (cor) are stomatal densities of macerated needles after correcting for geometry and changes in needle width from saturation in H2O.

Method comparison

t

P

n

Mean

Std Error

Upper 95% mean

Lower 95% mean

% Difference

SDsem:SDd 0.509 0.62 21 1.012 0.023 1.061 0.963 1.2
SDlm:SDd -2.307 0.04 13 0.915 0.037 0.995 0.834 8.5
SDlm (cor):SDd -1.205 0.25 13 0.960 0.033 1.032 0.889 4.0

....................................................................................................

Table 3. Stomatal densities measured on fresh, fully expanded (SDFresh) Pinus ponderosa and Pinus taeda needles (n=6). Stomatal densities were measured again on the same needles after they were oven-dried for 48 h at 70 °C (SDDry), then remeasured after they were saturated in distilled H2O for 48 h (SDWet). A one way ANOVA was used to analyse differences between fresh and oven-dried needles because leaf area of the oven-dried needles should decrease, resulting in higher stomatal densities. Numbers in parentheses are the standard errors.

Species

SDFresh

SDDry

SDWet

SDFresh:SDDry

t (SDFresh:SDDry)

P (one way)

SDFresh:SDWet

t (SDFresh:SDWet)

P (two way)

P. taeda 96.76 (3.59) 113.27 (7.49) 90.26 (5.05) 0.86 (0.04) -3.5032 0.0086 1.08 (0.05) 1.5254 0.18
P. ponderosa 49.28 (2.85) 49.93 (4.92) 48.68 (5.32) 0.99 (0.02) -0.8783 0.21 1.01 (0.02) 0.6428 0.55

....................................................................................................

Table 4. Area and width increase of air-dried leaves after saturating in distilled water for 48 h. Broad-leaves were analysed by cutting a 1x1 cm section near the midrib. Conifers were analysed by measuring their widths near the centre of the needle. Abies and Pseudotsuga needles were oven-dried at 70 °C before saturating in distilled H2O.

Genus

t

P (one way)

n

Mean

Std error

Upper 95% mean

Lower 95% mean

% Increase

Broad-leaved                
   Acer 17.093 6 1.140 0.008 1.161 1.119 14.0
   Aesculus 13.062 6 1.153 0.012 1.183 1.123 15.3
   Castanea 33.537 6 1.143 0.004 1.154 1.132 14.3
   Magnolia 4.439 0.0034 6 1.039 0.009 1.061 1.016 3.9
   Populus 18.611 6 1.099 0.005 1.112 1.085 9.9
   Persea 4.745 0.0088 4 1.054 0.011 1.090 1.018 5.4
   Quercus 8.942 0.0015 4 1.109 0.012 1.148 1.070 10.9
Conifers                
   Abies 8.262 0.0006 5 1.053 0.006 1.071 1.035 5.3
   Pseudotsuga 6.197 0.0008 6 1.425 0.069 1.601 1.245 42.5
   Taxodium 3.393 0.0137 5 1.113 0.033 1.205 1.021 11.3


....................................................................................................

Source: Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 52, No. 355, pp. 369-373, February 2001.


rating: 7.00 from 3 votes | updated on: 22 Dec 2007 | views: 10656 |

Rate article:







excellent!bad…