Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T11:03:25.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2025

Ignatius Kristia Adikurnia
Affiliation:
Department of Material and Environmental Technology, Tallinn University of Technology , Estonia
Cyrille B. K. Rathgeber*
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, AgroParisTech, INRAE, SILVA, F-5400 Nancy, France
*
Corresponding author: Cyrille B. K. Rathgeber; Email: cyrille.rathgeber@inrae.fr

Abstract

Numerous studies have investigated the impact of climate change on tree growth and carbon sequestration, exploring the effect of climatic factors on the onset and cessation of wood formation. Some studies used microcores for histological observations of xylem, while many others used dendrometer recordings to infer stem growth. However, the reliability of dendrometers in providing accurate estimates of growth phenology has yet to be fully assessed. We compared the phenology estimated using dendrometer- and microcore-based approaches for six tree species growing in contrasted site conditions and exhibiting contrasted tree-ring structures (non-porous, diffuse-porous and ring-porous) and bark types (smooth, scaled, fissured). Our results show that dendrometer estimate accuracy is poor and varied according to several factors, including species life traits, climate and site conditions. These results highlight the limitations of dendrometers in evaluating wood phenology in trees, and advocate for the concurrent monitoring of xylogenesis.

Information

Type
Original Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press or the rights holder(s) must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Figure 1. Plots of the residuals of the five-parameter logistic growth model applied to dendrometer measurements. Data points represent the residuals. The x-axis is presented in percentage of the annual growth (rather than day of year) to facilitate comparison of data from different trees, sites and years. The vertical arrowed lines mark the 5% and 95% growth thresholds. The solid lines represent the generalized additive models fitted to the residuals to highlight the overall patterns.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Comparison between dendrometer and microcore estimates of the beginning and the end of wood growth, for each studied species. The critical dates derived from both approaches for a given tree are represented by points connected with grey lines. The significance of the mean comparison test (t-test) is indicated on the left side of each plot and is denoted as follows: * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, *** for p < 0.001, **** for p < 0.0001, and ns for p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Relationships between dendrometer and microcore estimates of the beginning and the end of wood growth (DOY.05 and DOY.95 and bE and cE, respectively), for each studied species. The data points represent single-year values for each tree. The dotted lines represent the x:y baseline, while the striped lines represent the significantly reduced major axis (RMA) regressions. The equations of the RMA regressions, the coefficients of determination (R2), and the p-value of the permutation test are provided in the plots.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Mean absolute difference (MAD) between dendrometer and microcore-based estimates of the beginning (a–d) and the end (e–h) of wood growth over different life traits, including taxonomic groups, tree-ring structure, bark types and tree species. The whiskers are defined as the 5 and 95 percentiles. The results of the post-hoc Tukey ANOVA test are indicated by small letters above each bar, with shared letters signifying non-statistically different means. In plots D and H, the acronyms ABAL, FASY, LADE, PCAB, PISY and QUPE correspond to the species Abies alba, Fagus sylvatica, Larix decidua, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris and Quercus petraea, respectively.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Mean absolute difference (MAD) between dendrometers and microcores at the beginning (a–f) and end (g–l) of wood growth. (a) to (e) illustrate the comparison between two levels of spring precipitation, while (g) to (k) show the comparison for summer precipitation. For (a), (c) and (d), the precipitation data were taken in March and a threshold of 50 mm was used to separate high and low values. In (b) and (e), the precipitation data are measured in April and a threshold of 100 mm is applied. For (g), (i) and (j), the precipitation data are the sum of June, July and August, with a threshold of 300 mm used to separate high and low values. In (h) and (k), the precipitation data are the sum of August, September and October and a threshold of 100 mm is applied (see Supplementary Figure S14 for more details). (f) and (l) show the comparison for four elevation levels. In the lower panel, the whiskers are defined as the 5 and 95 percentiles. For (a) to (e) and (g) to (k) the significance of the mean comparison test (t-test) is indicated on the top of each plot and is denoted as follows: * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, *** for p < 0.001, **** for p < 0.0001, and ns for p ≥ 0.05. For (f) and (l) the results of the post-hoc Tukey ANOVA tests are indicated by small letters above each elevation, with shared letters signifying non-statistically different means.

Supplementary material: File

Adikurnia and Rathgeber supplementary material

Adikurnia and Rathgeber supplementary material
Download Adikurnia and Rathgeber supplementary material(File)
File 2.4 MB

Author comment: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R0/PR1

Comments

March 31, 2025

Dear Quantitative Plant Biology editors,

We are pleased to submit a research article entitled “Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls” for publication in Quantitative Plant Biology.

The formation of wood is a pivotal for the development, functioning and adaptation of trees to environmental factors. Moreover, tree radial growth has been shown to correlate with biomass production and carbon sequestration. As well as phenology has been shown to be a crucial component of tree growth and forest productivity.

In the context of climatic changes, numerous studies have investigated the effect of meteorological conditions on the onset, cessation and duration of tree stem growth. Many of these studies used wood samples (e.g. microcores) for almost direct observation of wood formation, at the cost of intense field and lab works. To avoid these costs, many other studies used records of stem girth variations from dendrometers to obtain information on stem radial growth.

However, it has not been properly assessed yet if dendrometers can provide reliable estimates of wood phenology. For six tree species growing in contrasted site conditions and exhibiting contrasted tree-ring structures (coniferous, diffuse-porous and ring-porous) and bark types (smooth, scaled, fissured), we compared the phenology estimated using dendrometer and microcore-based approaches. Our results show that dendrometer estimate accuracy is poor and varied according to several factors, including species life traits, climate variability and site conditions.

These results underscore the limitations of employing dendrometers in evaluating wood phenology and carbon sequestration in trees, and advocate for the concurrent monitoring of xylogenesis. Finally, we argue that dendrometers, which have the capacity to be deployed over large areas and for long periods, should be used in conjunction with microcore-based wood formation monitoring studies. This combination is proposed as a means of compensating for some of the biases of dendrometers and thus enabling their potential to be exploited to the full.

The work presented in this manuscript is original and has not been published nor is under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. We thank you for considering our manuscript and remain at your disposition for any further information.

Sincerely,

Cyrille B. K. Rathgeber, on behalf of all co-authors

Review: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

In this study, a comparison of dendrometer and xylogenesis data obtained in temperate tree species is done. The main objective is to assess how dendrometer data can be used to infer wood phenology. The comparison is very detailed and considers six tree species (four conifers plus two broadleaves) with different wood (conifer, diffuse-porous and ring-porous) and bark types. The study concludes that dendrometers show limitations in evaluating wood phenology (for instance, they do a poor job in capturing the growth onset date in broadleaves) and advocates for the use of (time-consuming) xylogenesis analyses.

The study is well introducted and conducted. Analyses are very detailed and robust. Results are well presented. The discussion could be improved. For instance, the accuracy of the used manual band dendrometers could be commented and the use of more refined automatic (band or point) dendrometers should be discussed. Perhaps, automatic dendrometers can better capture critical xylogenesis dates.

I think the text needs some revision and editing of the English usage.

I attach an annotated pdf with minor comments and edits of the ms.

Review: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript provides robust empirical evidence on the limitations of using dendrometer data to infer wood formation phenology. By directly comparing dendrometer- and microcore-derived estimates on the same trees across multiple species and environmental conditions, the study fills a critical gap in the field.

The work is methodologically robust and clearly structured. The authors make an important contribution by highlighting when and why dendrometer-based phenological assessments deviate from microcore observations, a matter of growing relevance given the widespread deployment of dendrometers in ecological monitoring.

A major strength of the manuscript is its extensive dataset, which spans multiple species, bioclimatic gradients, and wood anatomical types. Furthermore, the authors performed a direct comparison between dendrometer and microcore data from the same trees and assessed the error across different life traits (e.g., gymnosperm vs. angiosperm), wood anatomical types, bark structure, and environmental variables. The results have strong practical implications for interpreting dendrometer data in phenological studies, forest productivity modeling, and climate–growth interactions.

Below are some suggestions to improve the manuscript:

In the Introduction, the authors use the phrase “almost direct observations” to describe xylogenesis monitoring based on microcores. Since this terminology is somewhat vague, I suggest using a more precise phrase such as “histological observations” to improve clarity and accuracy.

In the section discussing tree species life traits, the authors refer to coniferous species as either homogeneous or heterogeneous. It would be helpful to clarify whether this classification is based solely on the transition from earlywood to latewood, or if additional anatomical or functional criteria were considered.

In lines 196–209, the four phases of xylem cell differentiation (division, enlargement, wall thickening and maturation) are described twice in close succession. The repetition does not provide any new information and somewhat disrupts the flow of the text. I recommend retaining the more concise or better contextualised version and removing or merging the other to improve readability and avoid redundancy. Furthermore, while Wilson (1970) is a classic reference for xylem development, I suggest that this section could be strengthened by citing more recent sources that reflect advances in our understanding of cambial and xylem differentiation processes. In particular, Larson (1994) and Savidge (1996, 2000) provide detailed and mechanistic descriptions of xylogenesis and may serve as more appropriate references for this section.

In lines 196–209 the manuscript refers to “xylem mother cells” as distinct from cambial initials. However, this terminology has been questioned in the literature due to its implication of predetermined developmental fate. According to Larson (1994) and Savidge (2000), cambial initials and their immediate derivatives (often referred to as “mother cells”) are difficult to distinguish cytologically and may not differ functionally in their developmental competence.

Moreover, Savidge (2000) argued that all cambial cells may be equally competent, and that cambium maintenance is regulated hormonally and mechanically, rather than by strict cell lineage commitment. Given this, I recommend using the more inclusive term “cambial cells” to denote all undifferentiated, division-capable cells in the cambial region.

In lines 222–225, the authors describe measuring the radial widths of different differentiation zones in angiosperms (e.g., beech and oak), which is an appropriate method due to the anatomical heterogeneity caused by vessels. However, the reference cited (Noyer, Stojanovic et al. 2023) appears to describe cell-based counting methods rather than zone width measurements. I suggest citing an alternative reference that explicitly uses radial zone width measurements in angiosperm xylogenesis to better support the methodology described.

In Figure 5, the authors present the relationship between spring precipitation and the end of the growing season, which may not fully capture the climatic controls relevant to growth cessation. I suggest that spring precipitation would be more appropriate to assess its influence on the onset of the growing season, while autumn precipitation would be more ecologically meaningful for analyzing factors affecting growth cessation. Additionally, the manuscript does not clearly define what is meant by “spring” and “autumn” precipitation (e.g., March–May and August–October respectively); please specify the exact months used for each period.

Lastly, the division into “high” and “low” precipitation groups lacks detail. It would be helpful to include the criteria used for this classification, either in the main text or figure caption, to improve transparency.

Figure 5 also presents the effect of elevation on mean absolute error (MAE) between dendrometer- and microcore-based estimates. However, it is unclear whether all species are equally represented across the different elevations. Since MAE likely depends not only on elevation but also on species-specific anatomical or phenological characteristics, I suggest clarifying how species were distributed across elevations. If the dataset is unbalanced, this should be acknowledged.

The statement that “phloem formation generally commences and concludes prior to xylem formation” may be too broad. I recommend rephrasing this sentence to better reflect the nuance of the cited source and to avoid overgeneralization, especially given known species-specific variation in the timing and duration of phloem formation.

In addition to phloem formation, it would be valuable to acknowledge that other bark-related features — such as secondary changes in collapsed phloem and rhytidome (outer bark) thickness — can significantly influence dendrometer measurements. These factors may contribute to variability in stem radius changes and complicate the interpretation of growth phenology, particularly in older trees or species with thick bark. A short discussion of these effects would strengthen the interpretation of discrepancies between dendrometer- and microcore-based observations.

Minor typos or phrasing (e.g., “offseted” → “offset”; “automn” → “autumn”).

Review: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

In this work, the authors compare band dendrometers and detailed xylogenesis measurements based on microcoring from 3 sites in France. They use a wide variety of tree species, ranging from Norway spruce to Common Beech. The work is relevant for this journal, and is a good contribution. Overall the MS is well-written, but some restructuring is necessary, as well as English language improvements (see minor remarks below) and language consistency. For the introduction I miss a definition of wood phenology, this needs to be made more specific. Then, the discussion would benefit if radius dendrometers were discussed as well: these might overcome the effect of bark wetting which you have on band dendrometers. Likewize: a microcore is a point measurement as well, which could have its own limitations when there is a lot of circumferential variability (although very minor in temperate trees). Another point to discuss is that with point dendrometers the zero-growth approach can be applied, that separates tree-water-status from actual xylem growth. This might also improve the relation between the microcore dates and the dendrometer dates.

Other major comment:

The authors need to describe what homogeneous conifer wood means (as in: Abies and Picea abies that show a gradual increase in cell wall thickness, as opposed to Larix sp. that has a clear earlywood-latewood boundary, and a considerable portion of latewood).

Line-by-line comments:

ll34 for “an” almost direct observation

ll58: Introduce the concept of Phenology more specifically. Leaf phenology is known, but elaborate a bit on wood phenology, which is about the cyclical pattern of wood formation

ll69: several types of dendrometerS

71: radius of a tree,

LL79: this Is a bit a repetition of ll62. I think you can group thiese paragraphs, talk about why microcoring and other approaches (such as pinning/dendrometers), and then dig into the details (radius vs circ, automatic vs manual)

Ll89: clear definition of wood phenology, introduce it scholarly at the beginning of the MS. Because wood phenology here is the same then as xylogenesis?

Ll92: terms: wood formation phenology, wood phenology etc. Some consistency necessary.

Ll162-164: there “are” XXX conifer and YYY broadleaf species. Not is.

LL162: consistency: above you talk about softwood vs hardwood, here you talk about broadleaf vs. conifer. I would go for the latter. (softwood vs hardwood is more of a wood technology jargon)

Ll165-182: here the broadleaves are discussed, then again the conifers. Maybe restructure by explaining all the conifers, then the angiosperms, then the ring porous vs. diffuse porous. Just for clarity.

Ll193: observed or photographed?

Ll196: Are these phases annotated on every image of the microsection for reproducibility?

L211: in-text citation and end-of line citation

L214: twice the size in the radial direction?

L215: bi-colored so red and blue?

L218: consistency: gymnosperm/conifer or softwood

L222: Why was not the number of fibres/vessels/parenchyma cells in every stage counted? Too difficult or not feasible?

L229-231: hence, and see my comment above, this is what you mean with wood phenology. Make this a bit more explicit

L248: Were more simple models (such as Verhulst/Gompertz) explored as well?

L262: What do you mean by SDV Stem Diameter Variation: is it the delta DBH? So the derivative of Equation 1 and the difference between growth of the dendrometer bands?

L271: (re-)explain bE and cE

L279: so expressed in days?

L286: between “two” estimates, not to

L290: MicroCC and dendroCC not explained

L298: bE and cE independent because of the microcores?

Figure 1: Striking to see that Quercus petraea the optimum of growth is later than with beech. I thought with the earlywood vessels that a significant portion of the wood is formed quite early.

Figure 2. Nice graph.

L353: what do you mean with a significant relationship? Clarify this a bit more.

L356: not clear what you mean with the linear relationships and the associated bias? Clarify. Also in L358 what do you mean with biased? You want to establish a linear relation to somehow correct the dendrometer estimates then in the future?

Figure 3: For pane H and J, it is clear that there is large variability on the DOY.95, whereas the more exact microcores show quite consistent dates?

L385: MAE? This abbreviation is not explained. It is only explained later in Figure 4.

Fig. 4: please explain homogenous conifer wood better. For pane D and H, why not keep the same order so we can assess the difference between species in terms of start and end? (for instance, Qupe quite some uncertainty at the start, but not in the end).

L426: did you look at years with large precipitation (especially at the start and the end). It is known that band dendrometers are very sensitive to that (imagine oak: thick scaly bark as you described, it can be wetted a lot and expands)

L445: What do you exactly mean with substantial variability in critical dates? Name it, and refer to a Figure.

446: towards the end of the growing season

457: you mean growth of the phloem, or the production of sieve cells etc.

L463: but simply because microcores look at very high resolution on the cellular level, and that a few active or divising cambial cells cannot be detected via dendrometers? Then this would make sense

L470:”dendrometers also integrate”

L475: or just the physical wettening of the outer bark also causes swelling

L495: what do you mean in overestimating? Detecting it later or earlier? Refer to a graph and make more explicit.

L505-507: seems less relevant in this paper

L513: but in the very cold sites you only have conifers?

Recommendation: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R0/PR5

Comments

Dear authors,

All three reviewers and myself find the article of interest for publication in QPB. The experiments and analyses are well conducted and conclusions well supported. The reviewers have a long list of comments to improve the readability and precision of the manuscript. You will find attached an annotated pdf by one reviewer who highlighted writing improvements. I would be happy if you can successfully revise the manuscript and address these comments.

Decision: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R1/PR7

Comments

September 12, 2025

Dear Quantitative Plant Biology editors,

We are pleased to submit a revised version of our research article entitled “Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls” for publication in the special issue, Advances in xylem and phloem formation research of the esteemed journal, Quantitative Plant Biology. In order to prepare this revised version, we have carefully examined all of the comments provided by the editors and reviewers. A point-by-point response to the editor and reviewers' comments is provided in a separate document, and these comments were used to improve the manuscript. To facilitate understanding of the work undertaken, we provide both a version of the manuscript and the supplementary material with track changes, in addition to the final documents. Please note that all the figures and tables of the manuscript and supplementary material have been reworked and replaced without using track changes to improve readability and reduce the size of the documents.

The work presented in this manuscript is original and has not been published nor is under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. We thank you for considering our manuscript and remain at your disposition for any further information.

We hope you will find this new version to your satisfaction and that you will be able to publish it in Quantitative Plant Biology.

Please find below a list of the files that comprise the submission

•Point-by-point response to editors and reviewers: “QPB-2024-0053_Response_to_Reviewers_2025-09-12.docx”

•Revised graphical abstract: “QPB-2024-0053_DendroPheno_graphical_abstract_2025-09-12.tiff”

•Revised manuscript: “QPB-2024-0053_DendroPheno_manuscript_2025-09-12.docx”

•Revised manuscript with track changes: “QPB-2024-0053_DendroPheno_manuscript_2025-09-12_wtc.docx”

•Revised supplementary material: “QPB-2024-0053_DendroPheno_suppplementary_material_2025-09-12.docx”

•Revised supplementary material with track changes: “QPB-2024-0053_DendroPheno_suppplementary_material_2025-09-12_wtc.docx”

Sincerely,

Cyrille B. K. Rathgeber, on behalf of the two authors

Review: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests.

Comments

Authors performed an adequate revision of the manuscript.

Review: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R1/PR9

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors have responded comprehensively to all of my previous comments and suggestions. Their revisions have strengthened the manuscript and clarified key points. I have no further concerns, and I find the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form.

Review: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R1/PR10

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

The authors took into account all my previous suggestions and remark. Just one remark that is free to adapt by the authors: I do not like the term “non-porous” wood, because conifer wood remains porous. I would just shortly explain that conifer wood is more homogeneous due to the existence of tracheids (instead of vessels and fibres etc.)

Recommendation: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R1/PR11

Comments

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your ms to QPB and I am delighted to accept it for publication. Reviewer 3 has a last minor comment for the final version:

“Just one remark that is free to adapt by the authors: I do not like the term ”non-porous“ wood, because conifer wood remains porous. I would just shortly explain that conifer wood is more homogeneous due to the existence of tracheids (instead of vessels and fibres etc.) ”.

Maybe you can correct these occurences in the final submitted version for publication.

Best regards

Aurelien Tellier

Decision: Monitoring wood phenology using dendrometers: opportunities and pitfalls — R1/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.