Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-03T15:30:15.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2026

Lorène J. Marchand*
Affiliation:
PLECO Plants and Ecosystems Research Group, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Peter Prislan
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Yield and Silviculture, Slovenian Forestry Institute, Slovenia
Jožica Gričar
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Physiology and Genetics, Slovenian Forestry Institute, Slovenia
Cristina Nabais
Affiliation:
Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Portugal
Elena Larysch
Affiliation:
Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Germany
Roberto Silvestro
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Sur Les Écosystèmes Terrestres Boréaux, Département Des Sciences Fondamentales, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Canada
Omar Flores
Affiliation:
PLECO Plants and Ecosystems Research Group, University of Antwerp, Belgium Earth Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cyrille B. K. Rathgeber
Affiliation:
SILVA, Université de Lorraine, AgroParisTech, INRAE, France
Patrick Fonti
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author: Lorène J. Marchand; Email: lorene.marchand@uantwerpen.be

Abstract

Understanding wood formation is critical for interpreting tree growth and carbon allocation under changing environmental conditions. While major progress has been made for gymnosperms, harmonized approaches for studying xylogenesis in angiosperms remain limited. Here, we present practical recommendations for observing and analysing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees, illustrated from examples from temperate and sub-Mediterranean forests. The perspective includes guidance on identifying xylem cell types in histological sections, defining developmental phenophases and establishing a workflow for data collection (and analysis). Annotated images are provided to support reproducibility and inter-observer consistency. We also discuss key challenges unique to angiosperms, including cell-type-specificities and wood type differences. Future research priorities include conserving histological images, extending xylogenesis to branches and coarse roots, enabling cross-biome comparisons and advancing kinetic analysis. This framework supports the coordinated expansion of angiosperm xylogenesis studies, enabling deeper insights into tree functioning in a changing world.

Information

Type
Perspective
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), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Figure 1. Spring phenological phases in diffuse porous beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). (a) The cambium is in a resting phase, typically consisting of four to five cambial cells (C) arranged in a radial row. (b) An increased number of cambial cells indicates the beginning of cambial production (bC). (c) Shortly after cell production begins, expanding cells or cells in post-cambial growth (E) can be observed beneath the cambium, marking the beginning of cell enlargement (bE). (d) Fibres and vessels were observed in the phase of radial enlargement. (e) The initial thickening of cell walls indicates the onset of secondary wall formation (T). (f) Under polarized light, birefringence becomes visible, confirming the beginning of secondary wall formation, i.e. cell-wall thickening (bT). (g) The onset of lignification is marked by a change in color in sections stained with a double-staining technique, first visible in vessels and the surrounding fibres. (h) Lignification begins in the cell corners and compound middle lamellae. (i) The first fully mature cells (bM), including vessels and fibres (M), can be identified by the uniform coloration of the cell walls and the absence of cellular content in the lumen. Scale bars = 100 μm.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Spring phenological phases in ring porous manna ash (Fraxinus ornus L.). (a, b) An increased number of cambial cells indicates the beginning of cambial production (bC). (c, d) Cell walls of initial cells show birefringence under polarized light as well as red colouring, indicating the beginning of secondary wall formation and lignification (bT). The differentiation dynamics of vessels in ring-porous manna ash can vary significantly; while some vessels may be nearly fully lignified, others may still be in the enlargement phase. (e, f) Secondary wall formation and lignification begin first in vessels and the vasicentric tracheids surrounding them, whereas nearby cells not in direct contact with vessels are often still in the enlargement phase. (g) The first-formed vessels are completely lignified, while the surrounding vasicentric tracheids are still undergoing secondary wall formation and lignification. (h) The first-formed vessels and vasicentric tracheids are fully mature, indicated by red coloration, whereas fibres and later-formed vasicentric tracheids are blue, indicating that they are still in earlier phases of differentiation. Abbreviations: cambial cells (C), cells in the phase of enlargement or post-cambial growth (E), cells in the phase of secondary wall formation and lignification (T), mature cells (M). Scale bars = 100 μm.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Autumn phenological phases in diffuse porous beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). (a) In the second half of the growing season, the width of the zone containing enlarging cells begins to decrease. (b) Cessation of cambial cell production (cE) is indicated by the absence of cells in the enlargement phase, although the last-formed fibres and vessels continue to differentiate. (c, d) In diffuse-porous beech, the differentiation dynamics of the last-formed vessels and fibres are less pronounced compared to those formed at the beginning of the growing season. (e) Cessation of cell wall deposition and lignification, i.e. thickening (cT) is marked by the presence of fully lignified terminal fibres. Abbreviations: cambial cells (C), cells in the phase of enlargement or post-cambial growth (E), cells undergoing secondary wall formation and lignification (T), mature cells (M). Scale bars = 100 μm.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Autumn phenological phases in ring porous manna ash (Fraxinus ornus L.). (a) An increased number of cambial cells (C) and a width enlarging zone (E) indicate ongoing cambial productivity. (b) A narrow cambium and the absence of enlarging cells indicate the cessation of cell enlargement (cE). (b, c) Following the cessation of cambial cell production, the last-formed cells continue secondary wall formation and lignification. Notably, vessels complete lignification earlier than the surrounding fibres. (d) Cessation of secondary wall formation and lignification, i.e. thickening (cT), is marked by the complete red staining of the cell walls in the last-formed fibres, indicating full lignification. Abbreviations: cambial cells (C), cells in the phase of enlargement or post-cambial growth (E), cells undergoing secondary wall formation and lignification (T), mature cells (M). Scale bars = 100 μm.

Figure 4

Table 1 Summary of the main anatomical indicators used to determine the phase of the xylem tissue across different cell types in angiosperm trees, as observed in microscopic sections

Figure 5

Figure 5. Presence of tension wood in beech growth rings. (a) Fully formed growth ring with a high proportion of tension wood fibres. Due to the presence of a cellulose-rich gelatinous (G) layer, their cell walls stain intensely blue with safranin–astra blue. (b) Developing a growth ring containing tension wood, where G-fibres can already be identified during secondary-wall formation. (c–d) Comparison between normal fibres (F) and tension wood fibres (tF): normal fibres are characterized by a lignified secondary wall staining red to purple with safranin–astra blue, whereas tension wood fibres show the deposition of a cellulose-rich G-layer, visible as a distinct, darker blue layer with weak or absent lignin staining.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Overview of three approaches for quantifying xylogenesis in angiosperms. (a–b) Width-based approach, illustrated for Fagus (a) and Fraxinus (b). In this method, the widths of the differentiation zones: cambial cells (C), enlarging cells (E), cells undergoing secondary-wall thickening and lignification (T), and mature cells (M)—are measured along selected radial files. (c–d) Area-based approach, shown for Fagus (c) and Fraxinus (d), where the anatomical areas occupied by cells in the same differentiation phases are delineated; when a phase occurs in disconnected patches, each patch is outlined separately and their areas summed (d). (e–f) Cell-based approach, illustrated for Fagus (e) and Fraxinus (f). Individual cells within a defined region are classified according to their differentiation phase, enabling detailed, cell-type-specific assessment of xylogenesis.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Schematic view of the specificities and methods to measure xylogenesis, define phenophases and model wood growth in angiosperm trees presented in this perspective paper.

Figure 8

Table 2 Criteria to defined the onset and end of phenophases visually

Supplementary material: File

Marchand et al. supplementary material

Marchand et al. supplementary material
Download Marchand et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.2 MB

Author comment: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear editors,

We are pleased to submit our manuscript for the special collection 'Advances in xylem and phloem formation research’ titled “Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees” authored by Lorène J. Marchand, Peter Prislan, Jožica Gričar, Cristina Nabais, Elena Larysch, Roberto Silvestro, Omar Flores, Cyrille B. K. Rathgeber and Patrick Fonti to Quantitative Plant Biology.

While significant progress has been made in gymnosperms, leading to the establishment of a unique large-scale database and state-of-the-art studies, a comparable synthesis for angiosperms remains lacking. This imbalance limits our ability to generalize findings, build inclusive datasets, and develop robust forest growth and carbon cycle models.

Our manuscript addresses this gap by providing a conceptual and methodological framework for assessing wood formation in angiosperms. Rather than providing a detailed implementation protocol, we aim to highlight key challenges, species-specific peculiarities, and methodological considerations essential for harmonizing xylogenesis studies across different contexts. The recommendations consider variation in wood type (ring-porous and diffuse-porous), cell type (vessels, fibers and parenchyma), and organ (stem, branch, and coarse root), and are supplemented by a comprehensive set of annotated micrographs to aid in the identification of xylem differentiation stages.

In the second part, we outline future research priorities toward the development of a globally representative xylogenesis database for angiosperms, with the goal of supporting climate modeling, enhancing forest productivity forecasts, and reducing biases in carbon cycle projections.

We believe that our contribution is timely, relevant to the focus of the special collection, and will be of interest to a broad audience working on wood formation, forest ecology, and global change biology. We thank you for considering our manuscript and are happy to respond to any questions or reviewer comments.

Yours sincerely,

Lorène J. Marchand, Peter Prislan and co-authors

Review: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This manuscript is essentially a “light” version of Noyer et al. 2023 and Butto et al. 2025, both of which cover this topic in more detail, with greater insight, more formal scholarship, superior figures, and much clearer writing. The insights not already established in those prior works seem to hinge on the advocacy for sampling branches and roots. That said, a minority of the manuscript is devoted to these issues, instead focusing largely on conceptual material covered in Butto, or technical details more completely covered in Noyer. In addition, the manuscript is often mistaken/incorrect about wood structure, and as such does not seem to warrant a de novo publication. That is, of course, a matter for the editorial staff, but the general lack of novelty coupled with relatively poor writing and factual inaccuracies seem unpromising.

The title is disingenuous: this manuscript is about xylogenesis in *temperate* angiosperm trees, which are the minority of angiosperm tree taxa in the world. The authors do comment about this in the paper, but a grandiose title is false advertising. The “recommendations” are also fairly sparse/vague - the authors also suggest that they present a protocol, but this is not the case, which I address briefly below.

The authors have not made a clear distinction between individual cell maturation milestones, and the maturation milestones of cohorts of cambial derivatives, which is central to their core thesis about how to evaluate xylogenesis in angiosperms, and already clearly presented and outlined in other works (e.g. Noyer et al. 2023, Butto et al. 2025). They refer to these distinctions, but their nomenclature and table structures conflate these two interrelated ways of viewing things. I believe they are quite correct with their overall assertion in this regard, but they do not formulate and deliver a cogent, clarified explanation of this, nor clear suggestions for how a reader might properly apply the cell maturation stages to most accurately determine phenophases at the cambial cohort scale.

The citations are frequently illogical and incomplete (e.g. Butto 2025 not cited, along with myriad others) – when citing n papers about a topic, convention cites them from pioneering to more modern. This is an issue of respecting prior authors and properly structuring the order of citations so that readers can see who came first.

A short list of exemplar concerns (not exhaustive):

1. The authors do not address ray development. They restrict their entire analysis to the axial system.

2. Some of the difficulties in tracking cell maturation in roots and in species with thin-walled fibers could be overcome by evaluating radial sections as a complement to the transverse sections.

3. When talking about sampling branches in 4.1, the authors do not address reaction wood, though it is briefly mentioned in 2.1. This is a topic that warrants full discussion, rather than brief mention, especially if the primary contribution of the manuscript is organographic expansion of context.

4. Related to #3, the effects of exposing roots to light for multiple sampling time periods is not addressed, but such effects are well-known for gymnosperms, and are used in geomorphology studies.

5. The “protocol” is not well structured, and vague to the point of not contributing useful information/suggestions, e.g. Lines 96-97, “The selection of trees should ensure that the sampled individuals are representative of the population and sufficient in number to account for natural variability”

6. It could be a language issue, but the characterization of tension wood being present in fiber walls (lines 299-300) is incorrect.

7. Nomenclature throughout the manuscript often does not reflect correct scholarship: a simple example is in lines 166-177. The VC produces *secondary* xylem and phloem, and the cambial cells are properly fusiform and ray initials. Fibers are tracheary elements – they are imperforate tracheary elements.

8. The authors do not present a clear or correct explanation of cell expansion – they say “the cell expands in all directions” but if this were the case, cells in wood would be isodiametric.

9. There are no compelling quantitative aspects to this manuscript

Review: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This article addresses the lack of a harmonized procedure for accessing xylogenesis in angiosperm species, which is sorely needed as the authors point out.

It aims to propose recommandations for the various tree organs, such as stem, branches and roots, by compiling current practices.

In general, a considerable effort has been made to cover all practices carried out on tree organs. However, some information are repeated and the writing quality is not uniform throughout the text. Careful proofreading will upgrade the manuscript and the main take-home messages for wood sampling preparation and analysis in xylogenesis studies.

In many places, the authors have compiled practices and highlighted the lack of harmonization or the high variability that can be observed in wood but have not proposed any recommendations, resulting in an impression of “unfinished business”. Additional sources and tables or graphical summaries would help the reading.

Last but not the least, the case of reaction wood is dealt with too superficially, even though it is one of the main sources of variability in the size and frequency of wood cells within a tree organ.

I am then recommending a Major revision.

Here, a more detailed review of the manuscript with specific points that, I hope, would help to clarify the recommendations that the authors wanted to address.

section 2:

“Should” is (too) widely used in this section.

While sample collection and storage strategies are described in great detail, the paragraph dedicated to sample preparation is very concise, creating an imbalance within the section. Yet sample preparation is the most important step ensuring high data quality. A brief summary of the most important points, such as the thickness of histological sections, would be welcomed.

l 96: if the purpose of the article is to propose guidelines, it could be relevant to source reference articles focusing on the sampling strategy here, as it is done for the sample preparation (l 129-135).

l 115: which insights? Sources are needed.

l 119: why should we focus on the roots located within the 50-cm of the stem base?

section 3:

Tables 1 and 2 are highly appreciated. By proposing harmonized definitions and criteria, readers finally have concrete recommendations at their disposal.

l 187: perhaps to add more recent sources that Plomion, it’s already a 23 years-old article (but a good one) and genetics evolved since then.

For example: Ye and Zhong 2015 https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv081 or Luo and Li 2022 doi: 10.48130/FR-2022-0005 ?

l 239: needs sources

l 240-241: repetition, those information were already presented in the former sections

l 242: Noyer et al. 2023 can also be relevant here (more recent study that specifically addressed this question in angiosperms)

l 245 and 248: “.” instead of “;” ?

l 255: “.” is missing

l 255: several recent articles are needed here.

l 262: according to who?

l 261-267: This is an interesting point that also raises the question of how we should spatially aggregate this variability in differentiation time in a harmonized procedure in order to quantify the xylogenesis of angiosperms. So far, the need to measure as large an area as possible seems appropriate for angiosperms, so the question is how to aggregate the data to obtain a representative overview of cell formation kinetics.

It might therefore be interesting to expand on this paragraph a little further and discuss some solutions/visions, as well as the impacts/interpretation errors if this variability is not taken into account. In the current state, the reader may think that it is sufficient not to measure fibers close to the axial parenchyma or vessels.

l 288-300: Nice paragraph summarizing the case of reaction wood. At the end of the paragraph, we still have the question: how should we handle reaction wood in xylogenesis studies if we want a harmonized protocol? Is it relevant to take account of it when focusing on carbon sequestration? Is it the same if we want to focus on responses to climate?

l 294-296: this also highlights one important question on the sampling strategy in stems. Spinning over the stem periphery can lead to misinterpretation of the cell formation kinetics (eg. compression vs “normal” wood formation kinetics in gymnosperms: Palombo et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-018-0773-z).

l 300: flexure wood (reaction wood in response to wind) is disregarded here while its wood anatomy and cell production can be strongly altered (cf. Roignant et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcx211). This should be included here.

section 4: a table summarizing the differences and the recommendation between stem, branch and root will improve greatly the take-home message.

l 420: Missing uppercase or to change the “.” with “:”

l 425: needs source(s)

Figure 7: if the authors have them, it would be more graphical to complete the figure with the anatomical slides of the stem (same date) to accentuate the comparison between the stem and root vessels.

section 5:

l 449: So, in angiosperms, should we also measure three radial files?

l 468: missing uppercase?

l 470-471: this sentence should start the section 5. By finishing with this sentence, the authors are not proposing solutions for this issue. What are the ins and cons of those approaches?

So far, this section is more a synthesis and does not propose any recommendations for angiosperms. What are the recommendations of the authors?

section 6:

sub-section 6-1: the take-home message is not clear here.

l 475-480: this is more or less a repetition of the previous sections.

l 481-486: what the authors think about immunolocalization/immunostaining of secondary cell wall polymers methodologies?

Examples on reaction wood and G layer formation:

Pramod et al. 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.07.013

Takata et al. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.15466

l 487-490: to focus on the mechanical properties, sample location on the organ periphery is an essential criteria to define: mechanical stimulation induces growth allocation and wood anatomy anisotropies between the different sides of the stem/root/branch and this should not be overlooked.

Title of the sub-section 6.4: “Responses to extreme temperature-related events” is more appropriated as the authors focus the text only on those type of climatic events (and not flood, windstorm, fire or CO2)

source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

Recommendation: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Lorène Marchand,

Thank you for your submission to the special collection ‘Advances in xylem and phloem formation research’ of QPB. I have now received the reports of two expert reviewers.

It has been appreciated that you are addressing a current lack of agreed-upon procedure to analyse angiosperm woof formation, and that you are proposing a general framework with specific recommendations. However, as pointed by both reviewers, there is room for improvement to make your article more useful for the community.

A revised version of you manuscript should emphasize what is really new, and make clearer recommendations and take-home message. You could consider improving tables and figures to convey your message and recommendations in a more useful way. Adding more citations to relevant works would be useful, when needed.

Importantly, both reviewers stressed that reaction wood, including flexure wood, is not sufficiently addressed. This aspect should be discussed further.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript in which you carefully address all points raised by the reviewers.

Dr. Félix Hartmann

Decision: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R1/PR7

Comments

Dear Lorène Marchand,

Your revision addressed all the issues raised by the reviewers and greatly improved your manuscript. I am glad to endorse its publication, and I thank you for your valuable contribution to the special collection ‘Advances in xylem and phloem formation research’ of QPB.

Félix Hartmann

Decision: Recommendations for assessing xylogenesis in angiosperm trees — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.