Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-l8mnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-19T04:29:34.782Z 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

1. Introduction

Monitoring wood formation at high-temporal resolution provides critical insight into tree growth phenology and seasonal radial growth patterns. It enables researchers to track the main phases of annual ring development, including cambial activity and the rate and duration of xylem cell differentiation; that is, cell enlargement, secondary wall deposition and lignification and the eventual programmed cell death of fibres and vessels (Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Frank, Fonti, Mäkinen, Prislan, Rossi, del Castillo, Campelo, Vavrčík, Camarero, Bryukhanova, Jyske, Gričar, Gryc, De Luis, Vieira, Čufar, Kirdyanov and Fournier2015; Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Lavrič, Ferlan, Vodnik and Eler2017; Rathgeber et al., Reference Rathgeber, Cuny and Fonti2016). Such studies therefore provide a detailed understanding of the kinetics of cell differentiation and xylem production over time (Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Frank, Fonti and Fournier2014; Jyske et al., Reference Jyske, Mäkinen, Kalliokoski and Nöjd2014; Rathgeber et al., Reference Rathgeber, Rossi and Bontemps2011; Seo et al., Reference Seo, Eckstein, Jalkanen and Schmitt2011). Because of their fine-scale temporal resolution, xylogenesis observations are uniquely suited to assess tree growth responses to short-term environmental variability (Buttò et al., Reference Buttò, Peltier and Rademacher2025; Rossi et al., Reference Rossi, Deslauriers and Anfodillo2006) and explore climate response mechanisms (Dox et al., Reference Dox, Marien, Zuccarini, Marchand, Prislan, Gric, Flores, Gehrmann, Fonti, Lange, Penuelas and Campioli2022; Friend et al., Reference Friend, Eckes-Shephard, Fonti, Rademacher, Rathgeber, Richardson and Turton2019; Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Gričar, Čufar, de Luis, Merela and Rossi2019; Silvestro et al., Reference Silvestro, Mencuccini, García-Valdés, Antonucci, Arzac, Biondi, Buttò, Camarero, Campelo, Cochard, Čufar, Cuny, de Luis, Deslauriers, Drolet, Fonti, Fonti, Giovannelli, Gričar and Rossi2024). Beyond fundamental tree physiology, wood formation studies inform broader ecological and applied questions, including carbon and water cycling and forest ecosystem functioning (Campioli et al., Reference Campioli, Marchand, Zahnd, Zuccarini, McCormack, Landuyt, Lorer, Delpierre, Gričar and Vitasse2024; Silvestro et al., Reference Silvestro, Deslauriers, Prislan, Rademacher, Rezaie, Richardson, Vitasse and Rossi2025).

Most xylogenesis studies in angiosperms have focused on the phenology of xylem-ring formation, such as the onset and cessation of the above-mentioned differentiation phases, as well as the transition from early to late-wood in the case of ring-porous species. Xylem formation phenology has often been compared with leaf phenology to better understand the coordination between primary and secondary growth (e.g., Dox et al., Reference Dox, Marien, Zuccarini, Marchand, Prislan, Gric, Flores, Gehrmann, Fonti, Lange, Penuelas and Campioli2022; Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Jevšenak, Hafner, Prislan, Ferlan, Lavrič, Vodnik and Eler2022; Pérez-de-Lis et al., Reference Pérez-de-Lis, Rossi, Vázquez-Ruiz, Rozas and García-González2016; Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Gričar, de Luis, Smith and Čufar2013). While these studies provide valuable information on the start and end of the stem growing season, they sometimes differ in how phenological phases are defined and delimited. A key source of variation among studies is that vessels and fibres follow different differentiation timelines. In angiosperms, vessels generally differentiate over a shorter period and lignify sooner, whereas fibres continue differentiating later into the season (Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Koch, Čufar, Gričar and Schmitt2009). Because these cell types follow distinct temporal trajectories and kinetics, phenophases derived from one cell type do not necessarily correspond to those derived from another. Accordingly, studies have focused on different cell types depending on their research aims; for example, vessel development in studies emphasizing conductive function (Pérez-de-Lis et al., Reference Pérez-de-Lis, Rossi, Vázquez-Ruiz, Rozas and García-González2016), whereas others considered both vessels and fibres together to characterize overall xylogenesis (e.g., Dox et al., Reference Dox, Gricar, Marchand, Leys, Zuccarini, Geron, Prislan, Mariën, Fonti, Lange, Peñuelas, Van den Bulcke and Campioli2020; Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Čufar, De Luis and Gričar2018). Each of these choices is appropriate for the specific research question; however, when comparing phenological observations across studies, it is essential to recognize that they reflect different underlying developmental processes. Although these studies use similar definitions of phenophases (Supplementary Table 1), they rely on different criteria and analytical procedures to identify them (Dox et al., Reference Dox, Gricar, Marchand, Leys, Zuccarini, Geron, Prislan, Mariën, Fonti, Lange, Peñuelas, Van den Bulcke and Campioli2020; Lehnebach et al., Reference Lehnebach, Campioli, Gričar, Prislan, Mariën, Beeckman and Van den Bulcke2021; Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Gričar, Čufar, de Luis, Merela and Rossi2019). As a result, current approaches capture only parts of the xylogenesis process, and the resulting phenology estimates are not fully comparable across studies, highlighting a methodological gap that limits synthesis.

The heterogeneous spatial distribution of cell types in developing xylem further complicates efforts to reconstruct intra-seasonal differentiation kinetics. Two recent studies highlight this challenge: Noyer et al. (Reference Noyer, Stojanovic, Horácek and Pérez-de-Lis2023) applied a detailed two-dimensional analysis of cell enlargement by cell type and spatial position, while Lehnebach et al. (Reference Lehnebach, Campioli, Gričar, Prislan, Mariën, Beeckman and Van den Bulcke2021) developed a three-dimensional tomography approach; both show promising results but remain technically demanding and not yet standardizable. Given that several research groups are now monitoring xylem formation in angiosperms, the absence of a common protocol hinders the possibility of building comparable datasets, as has been successfully achieved in gymnosperms (e.g., Li et al., Reference Li, Silvestro, Liang, Mencuccini, Camarero, Rathgeber, Sylvain, Nabais, Giovannelli, Saracino, Saulino, Guerrieri, Gričar, Prislan, Peters, Čufar, Yang, Antonucci, Babushkina and Rossi2025; Silvestro et al., Reference Silvestro, Mencuccini, García-Valdés, Antonucci, Arzac, Biondi, Buttò, Camarero, Campelo, Cochard, Čufar, Cuny, de Luis, Deslauriers, Drolet, Fonti, Fonti, Giovannelli, Gričar and Rossi2024). Establishing harmonized recommendations for angiosperms would enable integration into larger networks, foster cross-biome comparisons and ultimately improve the incorporation of wood formation processes into vegetation and climate models.

Monitoring xylogenesis requires repeated sampling and microscopic analysis of developing xylem tissues, each providing a snapshot of cell development at a given date. Here, we do not provide a detailed description of sampling and sample preparation techniques, since these have been well established in the literature and most principles are shared between gymnosperms and angiosperms (Fonti et al., Reference Fonti, von Arx, Harroue, Schneider, Nievergelt, Björklund, Hantemirov, Kukarskih, Rathgeber, Studer and Fonti2025; Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Lavrič, Ferlan, Vodnik and Eler2017; Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Martinez Del Castillo, Skoberne, Špenko and Gričar2022; Rossi et al., Reference Rossi, Anfodillo and Menardi2006).

In this perspective, we provide recommendations for best practices in monitoring angiosperm wood formation, illustrated with examples from temperate and sub-Mediterranean species. The approach applies to a certain extent to other biomes, including tropical, subtropical, arid and boreal regions. We synthesize scattered methodological practices, propose new recommendations and workflows to harmonize angiosperm xylogenesis research and outline future research directions. Specifically, we address variation in wood type (ring-porous and diffuse-porous) and cell type (vessels, fibres and axial parenchyma) and provide a detailed set of annotated images to support cell differentiation phases identification. Finally, we present a research agenda to advance xylogenesis studies, highlighting four priorities: (1) systematic archiving and reuse of histological resources, (2) expanding studies to include branch and coarse root xylogenesis, (3) increasing coverage to capture genetic and environmental variability, and (4) moving toward kinetic analysis of wood formation.

2. Phenology and differentiation dynamics in temperate angiosperms

2.1. Key differentiation phases

The vascular cambium is a lateral meristem responsible for producing both secondary xylem and phloem tissues. It comprises two morphologically distinct types of cells: fusiform cambial cells, which are elongated and aligned axially, and ray cambial cells, which are smaller and radially oriented. Through periclinal (additive) divisions, fusiform cells produce xylem cells toward the pit and phloem cells toward the bark of the stem (Larson, Reference Larson1994). The resulting xylem derivatives include tracheary elements (i.e., tracheids and vessel elements), fibres and axial parenchyma, while phloem derivatives include sieve tubes, companion cells, phloem fibres, and axial parenchyma. Ray cambial cells divide to form ray parenchyma cells in both directions. Once the process of cell differentiation is complete, the cell becomes structurally and/or biochemically distinct from the cambial initial (Savidge, Reference Savidge1996).

The differentiation process of tracheary elements, fibres and parenchyma (ray and axial) in the xylem can be divided into four successive phases: (I) cell enlargement or post-cambial growth, (II) deposition of the multilayered secondary cell wall, (III) lignification of the cell wall, and (IV) programmed cell death (Luo & Li, Reference Luo and Li2022; Ye & Zhong, Reference Ye and Zhong2015). During the enlargement phase, the primary cell wall is formed. The cell expands due to the increasing volume of the vacuole until it reaches its final size. Once cell expansion ceases, secondary wall formation begins. A multilayered wall, composed of S1, S2 and S3 layers is deposited on the inner side of the primary wall. Lignification begins shortly after deposition of the S1 layer, initially in cell corners and the middle lamella, followed by deposition in the rest of the wall (Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Zupančič, Čufar, Koch, Schmitt and Oven2006). The phases of differentiation are interconnected: secondary wall thickening begins in the central part of the cell while cell elongation at the apices is still ongoing, and lignification initiates even before the complete deposition of the secondary wall layers (Pérez-de-Lis et al., Reference Pérez-de-Lis, Richard, Quilès, Deveau, Adikurnia and Rathgeber2024; Wardrop, Reference Wardrop1965). Fibres usually lignify more gradually and extensively, while vessel elements undergo relatively rapid lignification to quickly provide hydraulic conductivity. The final step, programmed cell death, removes the protoplast, enabling mature tracheary elements to function as conduits (Cao et al., Reference Cao, Guo, Cheng, Cheng, Liu, Ji, Liu, Cheng and Yang2022).

In temperate diffuse-porous species, such as Fagus sylvatica, Betula spp., Populus spp. and Acer spp., vessels are small, numerous and evenly distributed throughout the ring, making earlywood and latewood indistinguishable. In contrast, ring-porous species, such as Quercus spp. and Fraxinus spp., form very large earlywood vessels early in the growing season, followed by a sharp transition to latewood characterized by much smaller vessels and a higher proportion of fibres and parenchyma. These anatomical differences underpin the distinct phenological patterns and differentiation dynamics described in the following subsections, even though both porosity types present similar challenges for tracking xylogenesis, such as overlapping diffe rentiation phases, asynchronous cell-type development and spatial heterogeneity.

Figures 14 (and Supplementary Figure 1) illustrate how these anatomical contrasts translate into the seasonal progression of vessel, fibre and parenchyma differentiation in representative diffuse- and ring-porous species (Fagus sylvatica, Fraxinus ornus, Quercus spp.). Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1 highlights how differentiation phases can be identified microscopically from cell shape, wall thickness, birefringence under polarized light and staining patterns. (Together, they provide the visual basis for the detailed descriptions that follow in the subsequent subsections, where we examine vessel, fibre and parenchyma differentiation in more depth).

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 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 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 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.

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

Note: These criteria are applicable across both diffuse- and ring-porous species.

2.2. Differentiation of vessels

For both diffuse- and ring- porous species, earlywood vessel elements enlarge rapidly shortly after the onset of cambial activity (e.g., Čufar et al., Reference Čufar, Cherubini, Gricar, Prislan, Spina and Romagnoli2011; Kudo et al., Reference Kudo, Yasue, Hosoo and Funada2015; Miodek et al., Reference Miodek, Gizińska, Włoch and Kojs2021; Puchałka et al., Reference Puchałka, Prislan, Klisz, Koprowski, Gricar, Puchałka, Koprowski, Prislan and Klisz2024; Umebayashi et al., Reference Umebayashi, Fukuda, Haishi, Sotooka, Zuhair and Otsuki2011). During enlargement, vessels are easily distinguished by their markedly larger lumina compared with surrounding cells and by thin, fragile primary walls, often displaying irregular outlines (Figures 1cd, 2ab, Supplementary Figure 1a). Once expansion ceases, secondary-wall deposition and lignification begin. At this phase, vessel walls still stain mainly blue with safranin–astra blue stains, but under polarized light, they exhibit birefringence, reflecting the alignment of cellulose microfibril of the forming S-layers; vessel outlines also appear smoother (Figures 1eh, 2cf, Supplementary Figure 1b–d). In both diffuse- and ring-porous species, earlywood vessels are among the first xylem cells to complete differentiation (Figures 1i, 2g, Supplementary Figure 1d). Their rapid maturation is functionally critical, as it restores stem hydraulic conductivity after winter embolism (Hacke & Sperry, Reference Hacke and Sperry2001; Sperry et al., Reference Sperry, Nichols, Sullivan and Eastlack1994).

In ring-porous species, once the large earlywood vessels have differentiated, the cambium gradually transitions to producing latewood, characterized by smaller vessels and a higher proportion of fibres and axial parenchyma. Latewood vessel differentiation proceeds more slowly than that of earlywood vessels and often continues well into the late growing season (Figure 2h, Supplementary Figure 1d–f).

2.3. Differentiation of fibres and axial parenchyma

Fibres and axial parenchyma cells typically begin differentiating alongside vessels early in the growing season, following the same progression as in vessels; the main difference is that fibres undergo less radial expansion and develop thicker secondary walls than vessels (Figures 1i, 2ef) (Donaldson, Reference Donaldson2001; Samuels et al., Reference Samuels, Kaneda and Rensing2006). Importantly, initial fibres continue wall thickening and lignification well into late summer (Figures 3cd, 4cd), a pattern that may also be related to differences in lignin composition, as vessels and fibres incorporate different proportions of guaiacyl and syringyl monolignols during wall formation (Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Koch, Čufar, Gričar and Schmitt2009). This substantial overlap among differentiating vessels, fibres and parenchyma can complicate phenological assessments, especially when early-phase cell morphologies are difficult to distinguish.

2.4. Asynchronous differentiation of vessels and fibres

Differentiation of vessels, fibres and axial parenchyma is asynchronous following overlapping but distinct developmental timelines (Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Gričar, de Luis, Smith and Čufar2013). Early-season vessels complete differentiation more rapidly than fibres formed at the same time (Figures 1i, 2g) (Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Koch, Čufar, Gričar and Schmitt2009). Toward the end of the growing season, this pattern reverses: vessel differentiation slows, while fibre differentiation accelerates (Figures 3bd, 4bd). In addition to these temporal differences, xylem differentiation is also spatially heterogeneous. The progression and rate of differentiation in both vessels and fibres vary with their distance from ray parenchyma; cells adjacent to rays initiate wall formation and lignification earlier than more distal cells (Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Koch, Čufar, Gričar and Schmitt2009), a spatial pattern also observed in conifers (Donaldson, Reference Donaldson2001). In ring-porous species, early-season fibres and vasicentric tracheids located near vessels begin wall formation and lignification sooner than those located farther away (Figure 2ef), reflecting functional coordination among hydraulically related tissues (Noyer et al., Reference Noyer, Stojanovic, Horácek and Pérez-de-Lis2023). Even among vessels (and the surrounding fibres) formed concurrently, differentiation can vary substantially. For example, one vessel may appear fully mature while an adjacent vessel is still undergoing enlargement (Figure 2cg), illustrating that individual cells do not differentiate uniformly along their length: differentiation often starts in the central part of the cell and progresses toward both tips. When observed in transverse section, however, the exact position along the cell’s longitudinal axis is unknown, longitudinal gradients in maturation may appear as differences among neighbouring cells. These temporal and spatial differences have important implications for the interpretation of xylogenesis dynamics.

2.5. The specific case of tension wood

Tension wood is a specialized type of reaction wood formed in angiosperms to adjust stem and branch position, for example, on the upper side of leaning trunks growing on slopes or in response to displacement by wind or other mechanical forces (Jourez et al. Reference Jourez, Riboux and Leclercq2001; Groover, Reference Groover2016).

The presence of tension wood in angiosperm growth rings can lead to misinterpretation of xylogenesis phenophases if not recognized. Tension wood is characterized by the formation of gelatinous fibres (G-fibres) that contain a cellulose-rich gelatinous (G) layer within the secondary wall. This G-layer has very low lignin content and therefore stains differently from fibres without tension wood (Figure 5a). Under safranin–astra blue, the G-layer typically appears intensely blue, in contrast to the red or purple tones of lignified secondary walls. As a result, fibres containing a G-layer may resemble cells that are still undergoing secondary-wall formation. Although mature fibres lack cell contents, as opposed to developing cells, the weakly lignified G-layer can mimic the staining pattern of earlier differentiation phases, complicating phenophase assignment (Figure 5b).

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.

However, G-fibres can already be distinguished during secondary-wall deposition: compared with fibres developing a normal S2 layer, their thin secondary walls stain more intensely blue due to their high cellulose content and show weak or absent lignin staining (Figure 5cd). This provides an important diagnostic cue for identifying tension-wood formation before the G-layer is fully expressed. However, in species such as Populus spp. tension wood may be present only in very small amounts or restricted to narrow zones, sometimes appearing merely as a thin G-layer in the corners of fibre walls, making it difficult to detect without high-quality staining or close microscopic inspection.

Growth rings containing substantial tension wood are often wider, reflecting increased and prolonged cambial activity and enhanced fibre production on the tension side of leaning stems or branches (Abedini et al., Reference Abedini, Clair, Pourtahmasi, Laurans and Arnould2015; Pilate et al., Reference Pilate, Déjardin, Laurans and Leplé2004). For reliable phenological assessments, we recommend avoiding tension wood whenever possible by sampling perpendicular to the tension wood (at 90°). When tension wood is present in small amounts, its impact on xylogenesis interpretation is usually limited. However, when it occurs in larger proportions, it can bias estimates of the duration and timing of fibre wall thickening and maturation, potentially leading to false conclusions if not considered.

3. Recommendations for quantifying the developmental phases of xylogenesis

3.1. Width-based approach

In addition to illustrating developmental features, Figures 14 also demonstrate common approaches for measuring xylogenesis in angiosperms. The underlying principle parallels the method used in conifers, where, along at least three radial files in the sample, cambial cells (C) and tracheids in enlargement (E), in secondary-wall formation and lignification (T) and in maturity (M) are counted. In angiosperms, rather than counting individual cells, the radial width of each band comprising cells in a similar differentiation phase (E, T and M) is measured at three positions within each sample (Figure 6ab and Table 1). For the cambial zone specifically, either the number of cambial cells can be counted, or the radial width of the cambial band can be measured. This width-based approach is straightforward and enables rapid assessment of cambial activity and xylem cell development. However, it may obscure cell-specific differentiation dynamics as described in Section 2. The measurements of the width of the band can be expressed in micrometres or as a proportion of the ring width (i.e. sum E, T and M).

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.

3.2. Area-based approach

To better capture the irregular, discontinuous and spatially heterogeneous differentiation of xylem tissue, an area-based approach can be used. In this method, a portion of the transverse section that includes the cambial zone and the newly forming annual ring is selected for analysis. Measurements may be taken in a representative portion of the sample or across the full width of the microcore.

Within this region, the area occupied by cells in the same differentiation phase is delineated and quantified (Figure 6cd; Table 1; Supplementary Figure 2b). The area outline should follow the actual anatomical distribution of cells belonging to each phase (E, T and M). When the same differentiation phase occurs in disconnected patches, each patch should be outlined separately and their areas summed (as illustrated in Figure 6d). Expressing the area of each phase as a relative proportion of the total analysed area (i.e. sum E, T and M) enables comparison among samples even when the size or shape of the analysed region differs.

3.3. Cell-based approach

A cell-based approach involves identifying every cell within the selected region (or the entire sample), making it possible to distinguish the phenology and differentiation kinetics of individual cell types (Figure 6ef and Table 1). This approach has already been demonstrated conceptually by Noyer et al. (Reference Noyer, Stojanovic, Horácek and Pérez-de-Lis2023), who mapped individual cells and assigned differentiation phases across two-dimensional sections of the enlarging annual ring. Although highly informative, such analyses remain time-consuming.

Recent advances in automated and semi-automated image analysis may substantially reduce processing time. Cell-detection models already exist for quantitative wood anatomy in microtome sections (e.g., ROXAS by von Arx & Carrer, Reference von Arx and Carrer2014) and for X-ray scans (e.g., Roboflow, Van den Bulcke et al., Reference Van den Bulcke, Verschuren, De Blaere, Vansuyt, Dekegeleer, Kibleur, Pieters, De Mil, Hubau, Beeckman, Van Acker and wyffels2025). Building on these tools, additional models could be trained to recognize xylogenesis phases (C, E, T and M) based on staining patterns, anatomical features or cell-wall density.

Such developments would allow the reconstruction of cell-type-specific differentiation trajectories, enabling comparisons of timing and rates of development using either cell counts or areas occupied by each cell type. This approach is particularly valuable for understudied cell types, such as axial and ray parenchyma differentiation. Ultimately, this approach would generate complementary datasets, such as xylogenesis of vessels, fibres, axial as well as parenchyma, providing a more complete representation of angiosperm xylem formation.

4. Recommendations to assess xylem formation phenology and growth dynamics

After measurements have been performed (whether by counting cells, measuring the width or area of differentiation zones or applying cell-based approaches), the next step is to assess xylem phenology and growth dynamics. Because multiple analytical approaches exist, the interpretation of the same dataset can differ depending on how phenophase boundaries are defined and how seasonal growth patterns are modelled.

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.

Consistent phenophase definitions are essential for comparing xylogenesis timing across species, sites and studies. Figures 14 and Table 2 summarize the key anatomical markers that indicate the onset and cessation of the main differentiation phases, such as the presence of enlarging cells, birefringence of secondary walls during thickening, uniform staining of mature cells and the absence of cytoplasm. These anatomical features provide the foundation for identifying phenophases and serve as reference criteria for the quantitative and statistical approaches introduced below. Supplementary Table 1 further offers harmonized definitions aligned with established gymnosperm terminology, facilitating consistency across taxa.

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

Beyond identifying phenological dates, modelling weekly measurements is crucial for describing how xylem formation progresses through the season; its rate, duration and temporal pattern. However, estimates of these parameters may differ depending on the chosen modelling approach (e.g., Gompertz curves, generalized additive models (GAMs) and Bayesian neural networks (BRNN)) (e.g., Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Kiessé, Hartmann, Barbeito and Fournier2013; Jevšenak et al., Reference Jevšenak, Gričar, Rossi and Prislan2022), reinforcing the need for reporting and careful interpretation.

The following sections provide recommendations for defining key developmental phases and for selecting appropriate tools to quantify xylem growth dynamics.

4.1. Identifying xylem phenology: Key developmental phases and phenological dates

In practice, most studies determine the onset of the growing season by identifying the first enlarging cells, the first appearance of secondary-wall thickening and the first fully mature cells (e.g., Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Dox, Gričar, Prislan, Van Den Bulcke, Fonti and Campioli2021; Prislan et al., Reference Prislan, Gričar, Čufar, de Luis, Merela and Rossi2019), mirroring approaches long used in gymnosperms (e.g., Li et al., Reference Li, Silvestro, Liang, Mencuccini, Camarero, Rathgeber, Sylvain, Nabais, Giovannelli, Saracino, Saulino, Guerrieri, Gričar, Prislan, Peters, Čufar, Yang, Antonucci, Babushkina and Rossi2025; Silvestro et al., Reference Silvestro, Mencuccini, García-Valdés, Antonucci, Arzac, Biondi, Buttò, Camarero, Campelo, Cochard, Čufar, Cuny, de Luis, Deslauriers, Drolet, Fonti, Fonti, Giovannelli, Gričar and Rossi2024). At the end of the growing season, the cessation of enlargement and the point at which the last-formed cells are fully mature are commonly used to define the end of differentiation (Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Lavrič, Ferlan, Vodnik and Eler2017). Because vessels, fibres and axial parenchyma do not differentiate synchronously in angiosperms, we recommend recording cell-type-specific phenophases whenever possible; for example, distinguishing the onset of secondary-wall formation in vessels versus fibres and noting the timing at which each cell type reaches full maturity. Late-season assessments should pay particular attention to when the final fibres and vessels complete differentiation, as their timing can diverge substantially.

In gymnosperms, Rathgeber et al. (Reference Rathgeber, Santenoise and Cuny2018) proposed, through the CAVIAR framework, using logistic regression to describe the seasonal probability of each differentiation phase. In this approach, the presence or absence of a given differentiation phase is modelled, and the phenophase dates correspond to the day when the modelled probability of a phase reaches 50%. This approach offers a consistent criterion for identifying the onset or cessation of cell enlargement or cell wall thickening. Because this method estimates the point at which a phase is well established across radial files, it may yield onset dates that are slightly later than the initial microscopical observation of the appearance of the first differentiating cells, but it provides a robust measure of the generalized phenological signal. Although originally developed for gymnosperms, the same principle can also be applied to angiosperms.

To define the cessation of cell enlargement or secondary-wall formation, Dox et al. (Reference Dox, Gricar, Marchand, Leys, Zuccarini, Geron, Prislan, Mariën, Fonti, Lange, Peñuelas, Van den Bulcke and Campioli2020) proposed that a phase has ended when the measured width of the corresponding zone represents less than 0.5% of the total differentiating ring for at least three consecutive sampling dates. Marchand et al. (Reference Marchand, Gričar, Zuccarini, Dox, Mariën, Verlinden, Heinecke, Prislan, Marie, Lange, Van den Bulcke, Penuelas, Fonti and Campioli2025) later adopted a slightly broader cut-off (1%) to minimize the influence of rare late-season cells that do not reflect sustained activity. These criteria provide objective and reproducible estimates of late-season phenophases. Comparable proportional rules could be applied to early-season transitions, for example, defining the onset of wall thickening when the width (or area) of the thickening zone exceeds 1% of the total increment.

Because different analytical approaches (first appearance, logistic regression and proportional criteria) do not necessarily yield identical dates, we recommend that studies explicitly report the method used. When synthesizing results across studies, priority should be given to consistently defined metrics (e.g., proportional criteria) or variability should be interpreted with caution as partly methodological. In the long term, adopting harmonized quantitative criteria (applied to widths, areas or cell counts) would greatly improve comparability among angiosperm xylogenesis studies.

4.2. Modelling xylem growth dynamics

Weekly measurements of xylem growth ring formation can be modelled using parametric growth curves (e.g., Gompertz functions; Rossi et al., Reference Rossi, Deslauriers and Anfodillo2006) or flexible smoothing approaches such as generalized additive models (GAMs) (Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Kiessé, Hartmann, Barbeito and Fournier2013) and Bayesian regularized neural network (BRNN) (Jevšenak et al., Reference Jevšenak, Gričar, Rossi and Prislan2022). These models reconstruct the continuous progression of xylem development from discrete sampling points, enabling quantification of growth rates and comparison of growth dynamics across years, species or experimental treatments (Buttò et al., Reference Buttò, Peltier and Rademacher2025).

Growth-curve models also help identify additional phenological events during xylem ring formation (e.g., the timing of maximum growth rate). When combined with quantitative wood-anatomy data (e.g., cell dimensions, wall thickness and lumen area), these models can also be used to determine transition dates between earlywood and latewood (e.g., Gricar et al., Reference Gricar, Cufar, Eler, Gryc, Vavrcík, de Luis and Prislan2021) and to infer cell-type-specific developmental kinetics (Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Frank, Fonti and Fournier2014, Reference Cuny, Fonti, Rathgeber, von Arx, Peters and Frank2019).

Because different modelling approaches may yield slightly different estimates (Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Kiessé, Hartmann, Barbeito and Fournier2013; Jevšenak et al., Reference Jevšenak, Gričar, Rossi and Prislan2022), we recommend that studies clearly report the modelling framework used and interpret model-derived parameters considering methodological differences.

5. Future research directions

5.1. Archiving and future use of histological resources

We propose that preserving histological slides and their digital copy using scanning microscopes (e.g., Fonti et al., Reference Fonti, von Arx, Harroue, Schneider, Nievergelt, Björklund, Hantemirov, Kukarskih, Rathgeber, Studer and Fonti2025) or alternative methods, should become a standard practice. This would allow current observations to be digitally documented and enable future re-examination, facilitating data verification and maximizing the long-term scientific value of collected samples. For instance, phloem tissue is consistently present on the histological slides prepared for xylem studies, yet it is rarely analysed (Gričar, Reference Gričar2024; Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Jevšenak, Giagli, Eler, Tsalagkas, Gryc, Vavrčík, Čufar and Prislan2024; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Liesche, Crivellaro, Doležal, Altman, Chiatante, Dimitrova, Fan, Fu, Forest, Gričar, Heuret, Isnard, Maurin, Montagnoli, Rathgeber, Tsedensodnom, Trueba and Salmon2025). Moreover, such preserved materials open the door for detailed anatomical analyses, enabling the quantification of wood and phloem traits and supporting investigations into relationships between growth processes and anatomical structure (see Section 6.4). Ideally, imaging should also capture birefringence channels to detect the onset of secondary cell wall formation.

Archived slides can also be reanalysed using alternative or updated methods, such as switching between counting- and measurement-based approaches, extending the analysis to additional bandwidths or training artificial intelligence models (Altman et al., Reference Altman, Altmanova, Fibich, Korznikov and Fonti2025). This contributes to the creation of a robust and standardized, large-scale dataset. Looking ahead, these existing histological resources can also play a pivotal role in calibrating emerging technologies, such as high-resolution X-ray computed tomography (HRXCT) (Lehnebach et al., Reference Lehnebach, Campioli, Gričar, Prislan, Mariën, Beeckman and Van den Bulcke2021).

5.2. Assessing xylogenesis beyond the stem: Branches and coarse roots

Xylogenesis research has historically focused on stems, with limited data on branch and coarse root development. Yet different organs may follow distinct phenological patterns, influenced by their function, age and environment (Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Lavrič, Ferlan, Vodnik and Eler2017; Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Gričar, Zuccarini, Dox, Mariën, Verlinden, Heinecke, Prislan, Marie, Lange, Van den Bulcke, Penuelas, Fonti and Campioli2025; Silvestro et al., Reference Silvestro, Deslauriers, Prislan, Rademacher, Rezaie, Richardson, Vitasse and Rossi2025).

Xylem in branches is generally narrower, with ring widths approximately three- to fivefold smaller and vessels of smaller diameter compared with the stem; a pattern consistent in both ring-porous and diffuse-porous species (Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Lavrič, Ferlan, Vodnik and Eler2017; Lintunen et al., Reference Lintunen, Kalliokoski and Niinemets2010; Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Gričar, Prislan, Dox, Verlinden, Flores and Campioli2025). The measurement method detailed for stems (Section 3.5) is equally applicable to branches (Supplementary Figure 2ac), and the phenophases defined for stem xylogenesis can also be identified in branches using the same criteria (Section 5). Tension wood or reaction wood can be present and is usually discarded from the analysis to limit bias of xylogenesis measurements induced by it (Gričar et al., Reference Gričar, Lavrič, Ferlan, Vodnik and Eler2017; Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Gričar, Prislan, Dox, Verlinden, Flores and Campioli2025). Coarse roots typically form larger and more uniform earlywood vessels, with vessel size increasing further along the root system, a trend observed in both ring- and diffuse-porous species (Lintunen et al., Reference Lintunen, Kalliokoski and Niinemets2010; Lübbe et al., Reference Lübbe, Lamarque, Delzon, Torres Ruiz, Burlett, Leuschner and Schuldt2022; Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Gričar, Zuccarini, Dox, Mariën, Verlinden, Heinecke, Prislan, Marie, Lange, Van den Bulcke, Penuelas, Fonti and Campioli2025). The xylem ring is usually dominated by earlywood, while latewood is minimal or absent, resulting in less distinct ring boundaries compared to the stems. Wood formation in coarse roots can vary markedly around the circumference (Lintunen et al., Reference Lintunen, Kalliokoski and Niinemets2010; Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Gričar, Zuccarini, Dox, Mariën, Verlinden, Heinecke, Prislan, Marie, Lange, Van den Bulcke, Penuelas, Fonti and Campioli2025). To account for this heterogeneity, it is recommended to measure width, area or cell-based methods in at least four locations evenly distributed around the cross-section (Supplementary Figure 2). While all stem-defined phenophases can be identified in coarse roots, the cessation of cell enlargement and cell wall thickening for fibres and parenchyma (e.g., cE and cT) is often unclear. This is due to autumn and winter xylem formation producing narrow, flattened fibres and parenchyma cells (Marchand et al., Reference Marchand, Gričar, Zuccarini, Dox, Mariën, Verlinden, Heinecke, Prislan, Marie, Lange, Van den Bulcke, Penuelas, Fonti and Campioli2025). Radial sections, as a complement to the transverse sections, could help differentiate the xylogenesis phase in autumn and winter. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of recording phenophases by cell type in coarse roots (Supplementary Figure 2).

Future studies should aim to adopt a whole-tree approach, synchronously assessing xylogenesis in stem, branches and especially coarse roots. A holistic understanding of organ-specific wood formation is essential to quantify total tree wood production and carbon sequestration, improving our grasp of internal allocation strategies.

5.3. Towards a global synthesis of angiosperm xylogenesis

Most angiosperm xylogenesis studies are concentrated in temperate and Mediterranean European forests, leaving major biomes, especially tropical, arid, boreal and southern hemispheric systems, understudied. Recent work from Asia, Africa, South America and Australia reveals substantial variability in phenophase timing and duration across species and environments, highlighting the role of local adaptation (Hicter et al., Reference Hicter, Beeckman, Luse Belanganayi, De Mil, Van den Bulcke, Kitin, Bauters, Lievens, Musepena, Mbifo Ndiapo, Luambua, Laurent, Angoboy Ilondea and Hubau2025; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Fan, Lin, Kaewmano, Wei, Fu, Grießinger and Bräuning2024; Marcati et al., Reference Marcati, Machado, Podadera, Lara, Bosio and Wiedenhoeft2016; Mendivelso et al., Reference Mendivelso, Camarero, Gutiérrez and Castaño-Naranjo2016; Nikerova et al., Reference Nikerova, Galibina, Moshchenskaya, Tarelkina, Borodina, Sofronova, Semenova, Ivanova and Novitskaya2022; Pompa-García et al., Reference Pompa-García, Camarero and Colangelo2023; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Fu, Yan, Bräuning and Fan2025; Zweifel et al., Reference Zweifel, Drew, Schweingruber and Downes2014).

Expanding monitoring to diverse ecosystems is crucial for building a comprehensive picture of angiosperm wood formation. While gymnosperms have benefited from decades of coordinated global research (e.g., Li et al., Reference Li, Silvestro, Liang, Mencuccini, Camarero, Rathgeber, Sylvain, Nabais, Giovannelli, Saracino, Saulino, Guerrieri, Gričar, Prislan, Peters, Čufar, Yang, Antonucci, Babushkina and Rossi2025; Silvestro et al., Reference Silvestro, Mencuccini, García-Valdés, Antonucci, Arzac, Biondi, Buttò, Camarero, Campelo, Cochard, Čufar, Cuny, de Luis, Deslauriers, Drolet, Fonti, Fonti, Giovannelli, Gričar and Rossi2024), a comparable synthesis for angiosperms is still lacking. This imbalance limits our ability to generalize findings, build inclusive datasets and develop reliable forest models. A globally representative xylogenesis database for angiosperms is urgently needed to improve predictions of forest productivity and reduce bias in carbon cycle projections.

5.4. Integrating xylogenesis and quantitative wood anatomy

Combining xylogenesis with quantitative wood anatomy offers a powerful and promising avenue to calculate daily rates of cell enlargement and wall thickening, as recently demonstrated for gymnosperms (Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Rathgeber, Frank, Fonti and Fournier2014, Reference Cuny, Fonti, Rathgeber, von Arx, Peters and Frank2019; Martínez-Sancho et al., Reference Martínez-Sancho, Treydte, Lehmann, Rigling and Fonti2022). Extending this approach to angiosperms would allow us to capture the dynamics of the kinetics of wood formation with greater precision (daily or weekly scale) (Buttò et al., Reference Buttò, Peltier and Rademacher2025). It would also be possible to investigate potential compensation mechanisms in angiosperm cell differentiation under temperature or water limitation (which was found already for conifers Cuny et al., Reference Cuny, Fonti, Rathgeber, von Arx, Peters and Frank2019; Larysch et al., Reference Larysch, Stangler, Puhlmann, Rathgeber, Seifert and Kahle2022; Vieira et al., Reference Vieira, Carvalho and Campelo2020) or even other drivers of intra-annual wood formation and carbon sequestration (Andrianantenaina et al., Reference Andrianantenaina, Rathgeber, Pérez-de-Lis, Cuny and Ruelle2019). Therefore, to achieve it, area or cell-type based measurement of xylogenesis should be developed to account for the temporal variability of the development of vessels, fibres and parenchyma (Keret et al., Reference Keret, Schliephack, Stangler, Seifert, Kahle, Drew and Hills2024; Noyer et al., Reference Noyer, Stojanovic, Horácek and Pérez-de-Lis2023). This integrated framework would greatly enhance our capacity to identify the environmental and physiological drivers of wood formation and to quantify their imprints on wood anatomy.

6. Conclusion

These recommendations provide a structured framework for studying xylogenesis in angiosperm trees, aiming to improve consistency in anatomical observations, measurement, phenophase definitions and analysis across cell types, wood types and tree organs. They represent an important step toward generating more comparable and comprehensive datasets, which are essential for advancing both fundamental and applied research. However, key challenges remain. These include the need to better characterize cell-type-specific differentiation dynamics, expand geographic and ecological coverage beyond currently well-studied regions, extend xylogenesis monitoring to branches and roots and implement kinetic analysis to investigate the intra-annual effect of climate on xylogenesis. Addressing these gaps will require methodological refinement and stronger integration of wood formation studies with ecological modelling. Ultimately, these efforts will support a more holistic understanding of how angiosperm trees grow, function and respond to environmental change, providing critical insights for predicting forest dynamics, carbon cycling and ecosystem resilience under future climates.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/qpb.2026.10039.

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the FAIRWood project.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

Pictures supporting this research will be made available on request.

Author contributions

LJM and PP conceived and developed the study. All authors contributed to the text and discussion.

Funding statement

This work is part of the FAIRWood project funded by the CESAB of the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB). This work was also supported by Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO, grant number 49572) and the Slovenian Research Agency (ARIS) through research core funding (P4-0430) and projects J4-2541, J4-4541 and J4-50130.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/qpb.2026.10039.

Footnotes

L.J.M. and P.P. equal contribution.

Associate Editor: Dr. Félix Hartmann

References

Abedini, R., Clair, B., Pourtahmasi, K., Laurans, F., & Arnould, O. (2015). Cell wall thickening in developing tension wood of artificially bent poplar trees. IAWA Journal, 36(1), 4457. https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-00000084.Google Scholar
Altman, J., Altmanova, N., Fibich, P., Korznikov, K., & Fonti, P. (2025). Advancing dendrochronology with R: An overview of packages and future perspectives [Review]. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2025.1593675.Google Scholar
Andrianantenaina, A. N., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Pérez-de-Lis, G., Cuny, H., & Ruelle, J. (2019). Quantifying intra-annual dynamics of carbon sequestration in the forming wood: A novel histologic approach. Annals of Forest Science, 76(3), 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0846-7.Google Scholar
Buttò, V., Peltier, D. M. P., & Rademacher, T. (2025). From division to ‘divergence’: To understand wood growth across timescales, we need to (learn to) manipulate it. New Phytologist, 245(6), 23932401. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.20390.Google Scholar
Campioli, M., Marchand, L. J., Zahnd, C., Zuccarini, P., McCormack, M. L., Landuyt, D., Lorer, E., Delpierre, N., Gričar, J., & Vitasse, Y. (2024). Environmental sensitivity and impact of climate change on leaf-, wood- and root phenology for the Overstory and understory of temperate deciduous forests. Current Forestry Reports, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00233-5.Google Scholar
Cao, S., Guo, M., Cheng, J., Cheng, H., Liu, X., Ji, H., Liu, G., Cheng, Y., & Yang, C. (2022). Aspartic proteases modulate programmed cell death and secondary cell wall synthesis during wood formation in poplar. Journal of Experimental Botany, 73(19), 68766890. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erac347.Google Scholar
Čufar, K., Cherubini, M., Gricar, J., Prislan, P., Spina, S., & Romagnoli, M. (2011). Xylem and phloem formation in chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) during the 2008 growing season. Dendrochronologia, 29(3), 127134. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786511000075; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2011.01.006.Google Scholar
Cuny, H. E., Fonti, P., Rathgeber, C. B. K., von Arx, G., Peters, R. L., & Frank, D. C. (2019). Couplings in cell differentiation kinetics mitigate air temperature influence on conifer wood anatomy. Plant, Cell & Environment, 42(4), 12221232. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13464.Google Scholar
Cuny, H. E., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Frank, D., Fonti, P., & Fournier, M. (2014). Kinetics of tracheid development explain conifer tree-ring structure. New Phytologist, 203(4), 12311241. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12871.Google Scholar
Cuny, H. E., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Frank, D., Fonti, P., Mäkinen, H., Prislan, P., Rossi, S., del Castillo, E. M., Campelo, F., Vavrčík, H., Camarero, J. J., Bryukhanova, M. V., Jyske, T., Gričar, J., Gryc, V., De Luis, M., Vieira, J., Čufar, K., Kirdyanov, A. V., … Fournier, M. (2015). Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests [letter]. Nature Plants, 1, 15160. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.160.Google Scholar
Cuny, H. E., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Kiessé, T. S., Hartmann, F. P., Barbeito, I., & Fournier, M. (2013). Generalized additive models reveal the intrinsic complexity of wood formation dynamics. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64(7), 19831994. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert057.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. A. (2001). Lignification and lignin topochemistry - an ultrastructural view. Phytochemistry, 57(6), 859873.Google Scholar
Dox, I., Gricar, J., Marchand, L. J., Leys, S., Zuccarini, P., Geron, C., Prislan, P., Mariën, B., Fonti, P., Lange, H., Peñuelas, J., Van den Bulcke, J., & Campioli, M. (2020). Timeline of autumn phenology in temperate deciduous trees. Tree Physiology, 40(8), 10011013. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaa058.Google Scholar
Dox, I., Marien, B., Zuccarini, P., Marchand, L. J., Prislan, P., Gric, J., Flores, O., Gehrmann, F., Fonti, P., Lange, H., Penuelas, J., & Campioli, M. (2022). Wood growth phenology and its relationship with leaf phenology in deciduous forest trees of the temperate zone of Western Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 327, Article 109229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109229.Google Scholar
Fonti, M. V., von Arx, G., Harroue, M., Schneider, L., Nievergelt, D., Björklund, J., Hantemirov, R., Kukarskih, V., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Studer, N.-T., & Fonti, P. (2025). A protocol for high-quality sectioning for tree-ring anatomy [methods]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1505389.Google Scholar
Friend, A. D., Eckes-Shephard, A. H., Fonti, P., Rademacher, T. T., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Richardson, A. D., & Turton, R. H. (2019). On the need to consider wood formation processes in global vegetation models and a suggested approach. Annals of Forest Science, 76(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0819-x.Google Scholar
Gričar, J. (2024). Phloem: A missing link in understanding tree growth response in a changing environment. Journal of Experimental Botany, 75(22), 68986902. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erae410.Google Scholar
Gricar, J., Cufar, K., Eler, K., Gryc, V., Vavrcík, H., de Luis, M., & Prislan, P. (2021). Transition dates from Earlywood to latewood and early phloem to late phloem in Norway spruce. Forests, 12(3), Article 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12030331.Google Scholar
Gričar, J., Jevšenak, J., Giagli, K., Eler, K., Tsalagkas, D., Gryc, V., Vavrčík, H., Čufar, K., & Prislan, P. (2024). Temporal and spatial variability of phloem structure in Picea abies and Fagus sylvatica and its link to climate. Plant, Cell & Environment, 47(4), 12851299. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14811.Google Scholar
Gričar, J., Jevšenak, J., Hafner, P., Prislan, P., Ferlan, M., Lavrič, M., Vodnik, D., & Eler, K. (2022). Climatic regulation of leaf and cambial phenology in Quercus pubescens: Their interlinkage and impact on xylem and phloem conduits. Science of the Total Environment, 802, 149968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149968.Google Scholar
Gričar, J., Lavrič, M., Ferlan, M., Vodnik, D., & Eler, K. (2017). Intra-annual leaf phenology, radial growth and structure of xylem and phloem in different tree parts of Quercus pubescens. European Journal of Forest Research, 136(4), 625637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1060-5.Google Scholar
Gričar, J., Zupančič, M., Čufar, K., Koch, G., Schmitt, U., & Oven, P. (2006). Effect of local heating and cooling on cambial activity and cell differentiation in the stem of Norway spruce (Picea abies). Annals of Botany, 97(6), 943951.Google Scholar
Groover, A. (2016). Gravitropisms and reaction woods of forest trees – Evolution, functions and mechanisms. New Phytologist, 211(3), 790802. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13968.Google Scholar
Hacke, U. G., & Sperry, J. S. (2001). Functional and ecological xylem anatomy. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 4(2), 97115. https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-8319-00017.Google Scholar
Hicter, P., Beeckman, H., Luse Belanganayi, B., De Mil, T., Van den Bulcke, J., Kitin, P., Bauters, M., Lievens, K., Musepena, D., Mbifo Ndiapo, J., Luambua, N. K., Laurent, F., Angoboy Ilondea, B., & Hubau, W. (2025). Asynchronous xylogenesis among and within tree species in the Central Congo Basin. BMC Plant Biology, 25(1), 317. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-06314-2.Google Scholar
Jevšenak, J., Gričar, J., Rossi, S., & Prislan, P. (2022). Modelling seasonal dynamics of secondary growth in R. Ecography, 2022(9), e06030. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.06030.Google Scholar
Jourez, B., Riboux, A., & Leclercq, A. (2001). Anatomical characteristics of tension wood and opposite wood in young inclined stems of poplar (Populus Euramericana cv ‘Ghoy’). IAWA Journal, 22(2), 133157. https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-90000274.Google Scholar
Jyske, T., Mäkinen, H., Kalliokoski, T., & Nöjd, P. (2014). Intra-annual tracheid production of Norway spruce and scots pine across a latitudinal gradient in Finland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 194, 241254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.015.Google Scholar
Keret, R., Schliephack, P. M., Stangler, D. F., Seifert, T., Kahle, H.-P., Drew, D. M., & Hills, P. N. (2024). An open-source machine-learning approach for obtaining high-quality quantitative wood anatomy data from E grandis and P. radiata xylem. Plant Science, 340, 111970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2023.111970.Google Scholar
Kudo, K., Yasue, K., Hosoo, Y., & Funada, R. (2015). Relationship between formation of earlywood vessels and leaf phenology in two ring-porous hardwoods, Quercus serrata and Robinia pseudoacacia, in early spring. Journal of Wood Science, 61(5), 455464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-015-1487-6.Google Scholar
Larson, P. R. (1994). The vascular cambium: Development and structure. Springer.Google Scholar
Larysch, E., Stangler, D. F., Puhlmann, H., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Seifert, T., & Kahle, H. P. (2022). The 2018 hot drought pushed conifer wood formation to the limit of its plasticity: Consequences for woody biomass production and tree ring structure. Plant Biology, 24(7), 11711185. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.13399.Google Scholar
Lehnebach, R., Campioli, M., Gričar, J., Prislan, P., Mariën, B., Beeckman, H., & Van den Bulcke, J. (2021). High-resolution X-ray computed tomography: A new workflow for the analysis of Xylogenesis and intra-seasonal wood biomass production [original research]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.698640.Google Scholar
Li, X., Silvestro, R., Liang, E., Mencuccini, M., Camarero, J. J., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Sylvain, J. D., Nabais, C., Giovannelli, A., Saracino, A., Saulino, L., Guerrieri, R., Gričar, J., Prislan, P., Peters, R. L., Čufar, K., Yang, B., Antonucci, S., Babushkina, E., … Rossi, S. (2025). Warming increases the phenological mismatch between carbon sources and sinks in conifers. Nature Climate Change, 15(12), 13631370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02474-z.Google Scholar
Lintunen, A., Kalliokoski, T., & Niinemets, Ü. (2010). The effect of tree architecture on conduit diameter and frequency from small distal roots to branch tips in Betula pendula, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris. Tree Physiology, 30(11), 14331447. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpq085.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.-N., Fan, Z.-X., Lin, Y.-X., Kaewmano, A., Wei, X.-L., Fu, P.-L., Grießinger, J., & Bräuning, A. (2024). Impact of extreme pre-monsoon drought on xylogenesis and intra-annual radial increments of two tree species in a tropical montane evergreen broad-leaved forest, Southwest China. Tree Physiology, 44(9). https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpae086.Google Scholar
Lübbe, T., Lamarque, L. J., Delzon, S., Torres Ruiz, J. M., Burlett, R., Leuschner, C., & Schuldt, B. (2022). High variation in hydraulic efficiency but not xylem safety between roots and branches in four temperate broad-leaved tree species. Functional Ecology, 36(3), 699712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13975.Google Scholar
Luo, L., & Li, L. (2022). Molecular understanding of wood formation in trees. Forestry Research, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.48130/FR-2022-0005.Google Scholar
Marcati, C. R., Machado, S. R., Podadera, D. S., Lara, N. O. T. d., Bosio, F., & Wiedenhoeft, A. C. (2016). Cambial activity in dry and rainy season on branches from woody species growing in Brazilian Cerrado. Flora, 223, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2016.04.008.Google Scholar
Marchand, L. J., Dox, I., Gričar, J., Prislan, P., Van Den Bulcke, J., Fonti, P., & Campioli, M. (2021). Timing of spring xylogenesis in temperate deciduous tree species relates to tree growth characteristics and previous autumn phenology. Tree Physiology, 41(7), 11611170. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaa171.Google Scholar
Marchand, L. J., Gričar, J., Prislan, P., Dox, I., Verlinden, M., Flores, O., & Campioli, M. (2025). Xylem growth cessation in stems and branches of European beech and silver birch: Influences of temperature and drought [original research]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1648689.Google Scholar
Marchand, L. J., Gričar, J., Zuccarini, P., Dox, I., Mariën, B., Verlinden, M., Heinecke, T., Prislan, P., Marie, G., Lange, H., Van den Bulcke, J., Penuelas, J., Fonti, P., & Campioli, M. (2025). No winter halt in below-ground wood growth of four angiosperm deciduous tree species. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 9(3), 386394. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02602-6.Google Scholar
Martínez-Sancho, E., Treydte, K., Lehmann, M. M., Rigling, A., & Fonti, P. (2022). Drought impacts on tree carbon sequestration and water use – Evidence from intra-annual tree-ring characteristics. New Phytologist, 236(1), 5870. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18224.Google Scholar
Mendivelso, H. A., Camarero, J. J., Gutiérrez, E., & Castaño-Naranjo, A. (2016). Climatic influences on leaf phenology, xylogenesis and radial stem changes at hourly to monthly scales in two tropical dry forests. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 216, 2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.09.014.Google Scholar
Miodek, A., Gizińska, A., Włoch, W., & Kojs, P. (2021). What do we know about growth of vessel elements of secondary xylem in woody plants? Biological Reviews, 96(6), 29112924. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12785.Google Scholar
Nikerova, K. M., Galibina, N. A., Moshchenskaya, Y. L., Tarelkina, T. V., Borodina, M. N., Sofronova, I. N., Semenova, L. I., Ivanova, D. S., & Novitskaya, L. L. (2022). Upregulation of antioxidant enzymes is a biochemical indicator of abnormal xylogenesis in Karelian birch. Trees, 36(2), 517529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-021-02225-5.Google Scholar
Noyer, E., Stojanovic, M., Horácek, P., & Pérez-de-Lis, G. (2023). Toward a better understanding of angiosperm xylogenesis: A new method for a cellular approach. New Phytologist, 239(2), 792805. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18959.Google Scholar
Pérez-de-Lis, G., Richard, B., Quilès, F., Deveau, A., Adikurnia, I.-K., & Rathgeber, C. B. K. (2024). Multimodal imaging analysis in silver fir reveals coordination in cellulose and lignin deposition. Plant Physiology, 195(3), 24282442. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiae203.Google Scholar
Pérez-de-Lis, G., Rossi, S., Vázquez-Ruiz, R. A., Rozas, V., & García-González, I. (2016). Do changes in spring phenology affect earlywood vessels? Perspective from the xylogenesis monitoring of two sympatric ring-porous oaks. New Phytologist, 209(2), 521530. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13610.Google Scholar
Pilate, G., Déjardin, A., Laurans, F., & Leplé, J.-C. (2004). Tension wood as a model for functional genomics of wood formation. New Phytologist, 164(1), 6372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01176.x.Google Scholar
Pompa-García, M., Camarero, J. J., & Colangelo, M. (2023). Different xylogenesis responses to atmospheric water demand contribute to species coexistence in a mixed pine–oak forest. Journal of Forestry Research, 34(1), 5162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01484-3.Google Scholar
Prislan, P., Čufar, K., De Luis, M., & Gričar, J. (2018). Precipitation is not limiting for xylem formation dynamics and vessel development in European beech from two temperate forest sites. Tree Physiology, 38, 186197. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx167.Google Scholar
Prislan, P., Gričar, J., Čufar, K., de Luis, M., Merela, M., & Rossi, S. (2019). Growing season and radial growth predicted for Fagus sylvatica under climate change [journal article]. Climatic Change, 153, 181197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02374-0.Google Scholar
Prislan, P., Gričar, J., de Luis, M., Smith, K. T., & Čufar, K. (2013). Phenological variation in xylem and phloem formation in Fagus sylvatica from two contrasting sites. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 180(2013), 142151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.06.001.Google Scholar
Prislan, P., Koch, G., Čufar, K., Gričar, J., & Schmitt, U. (2009). Topochemical investigations of cell walls in developing xylem of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) [https://doi.Org/10.1515/HF.2009.079]. Holzforschung, 63(4), 482490. https://doi.org/10.1515/hf.2009.079.Google Scholar
Prislan, P., Martinez Del Castillo, E., Skoberne, G., Špenko, N., & Gričar, J. (2022). Dendrochronologia’s tutoring recipes: Sample preparation protocol for wood and phloem formation analyses. Dendrochronologia, 73, 125959.Google Scholar
Puchałka, R., Prislan, P., Klisz, M., Koprowski, M., Gricar, J., Puchałka, R., Koprowski, M., Prislan, P., & Klisz, M. (2024). Tree-ring formation dynamics in Fagus sylvatica and Quercus petraea in a dry and a wet year. Dendrobiology, 91, 115. https://doi.org/10.12657/denbio.091.001.Google Scholar
Rathgeber, C. B. K., Cuny, H. E., & Fonti, P. (2016). Biological basis of tree-ring formation: A crash course [mini review]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00734.Google Scholar
Rathgeber, C. B. K., Rossi, S., & Bontemps, J.-D. (2011). Cambial activity related to tree size in a mature silver-fir plantation. Annals of Botany, 108(3), 429438. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr168.Google Scholar
Rathgeber, C. B. K., Santenoise, P., & Cuny, H. E. (2018). CAVIAR: An R package for checking, displaying and processing wood-formation-monitoring data. Tree Physiology, 38(8), 12461260. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy054.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Anfodillo, T., & Menardi, R. (2006). Trephor: A new tool for sampling microcores from tree stems. IAWA Journal, 27(1), 8997. https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-90000139.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Deslauriers, A., & Anfodillo, T. (2006). Assessment of cambial activity and xylogenesis by microsampling tree species: An example at the alpine timberline [article]. IAWA Journal, 27(4), 383394. https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-90000161.Google Scholar
Samuels, A. L., Kaneda, M., & Rensing, K. H. (2006). The cell biology of wood formation: from cambial divisions to mature secondary xylem. Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique, 84(4), 631639.Google Scholar
Savidge, R. A. (1996). Xylogenesis, genetic and environmental regulation – A review. IAWA Journal, 17(3), 269310.Google Scholar
Seo, J. W., Eckstein, D., Jalkanen, R., & Schmitt, U. (2011). Climatic control of intra- and inter-annual wood-formation dynamics of scots pine in northern Finland. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 72(3), 422431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.01.003.Google Scholar
Silvestro, R., Deslauriers, A., Prislan, P., Rademacher, T., Rezaie, N., Richardson, A. D., Vitasse, Y., & Rossi, S. (2025). From roots to leaves: Tree growth phenology in Forest ecosystems. Current Forestry Reports, 11(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-025-00245-9.Google Scholar
Silvestro, R., Mencuccini, M., García-Valdés, R., Antonucci, S., Arzac, A., Biondi, F., Buttò, V., Camarero, J. J., Campelo, F., Cochard, H., Čufar, K., Cuny, H. E., de Luis, M., Deslauriers, A., Drolet, G., Fonti, M. V., Fonti, P., Giovannelli, A., Gričar, J., … Rossi, S. (2024). Partial asynchrony of coniferous forest carbon sources and sinks at the intra-annual time scale. Nature Communications, 15(1), 6169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49494-5.Google Scholar
Sperry, J. S., Nichols, K. L., Sullivan, J. E. M., & Eastlack, S. E. (1994). Xylem embolism in ring-porous, diffuse-porous, and coniferous trees of northern Utah and interior Alaska. Ecology, 75(6), 17361752. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939633.Google Scholar
Umebayashi, T., Fukuda, K., Haishi, T., Sotooka, R., Zuhair, S., & Otsuki, K. (2011). The developmental process of xylem embolisms in pine wilt disease monitored by multipoint imaging using compact magnetic resonance imaging. Plant Physiology, 156(2), 943951. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.170282.Google Scholar
Van den Bulcke, J., Verschuren, L., De Blaere, R., Vansuyt, S., Dekegeleer, M., Kibleur, P., Pieters, O., De Mil, T., Hubau, W., Beeckman, H., Van Acker, J., & wyffels, F. (2025). Enabling high-throughput quantitative wood anatomy through a dedicated pipeline. Plant Methods, 21(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-025-01330-7.Google Scholar
Vieira, J., Carvalho, A., & Campelo, F. (2020). Tree growth under climate change: Evidence from Xylogenesis timings and kinetics [original research]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11(90). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00090.Google Scholar
von Arx, G., & Carrer, M. (2014). ROXAS – A new tool to build centuries-long tracheid-lumen chronologies in conifers. Dendrochronologia, 32(3), 290293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2013.12.001.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Liesche, J., Crivellaro, A., Doležal, J., Altman, J., Chiatante, D., Dimitrova, A., Fan, Z., Fu, P., Forest, F., Gričar, J., Heuret, P., Isnard, S., Maurin, O., Montagnoli, A., Rathgeber, C. B. K., Tsedensodnom, E., Trueba, S., & Salmon, Y. (2025). Physical constraints and environmental factors shape phloem anatomical traits in woody angiosperm species. New Phytologist, 248(5), 23162330. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.70578.Google Scholar
Wardrop, A. (1965). Cellular differentiation in xylem. In “Cellular ultrastructure of Woody plants” (WA C8t6, ed.). Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Ye, Z.-H., & Zhong, R. (2015). Molecular control of wood formation in trees. Journal of Experimental Botany, 66(14), 41194131. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv081.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y.-X., Fu, P.-L., Yan, Q.-S., Bräuning, A., & Fan, Z.-X. (2025). Intra-annual stem radius growth and cell formation of two diffuse-porous tree species in a subtropical forest in Southwest China. Tree Physiology, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpaf020.Google Scholar
Zweifel, R., Drew, D. M., Schweingruber, F., & Downes, G. M. (2014). Xylem as the main origin of stem radius changes in eucalyptus . Functional Plant Biology, 41(5), 520534. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP13240.Google Scholar
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.