ArticleAnnals of botany2026
How much cross-sectional area is needed to estimate vessel traits in tropical tree branches?
Article in Annals of botany, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWood anatomical traits provide key insights into plant physiology, ecology and evolution but their quantification is time-consuming. As a result, measurements are often based on small sample areas or few features, potentially reducing the accuracy and repeatability of estimates. A better understanding of how sampling intensity influences estimation of anatomical traits would improve the efficiency and reliability of wood anatomical studies.
methodsWe annotated all vessels in 164 branch cross-sections from 19 tree species in Puerto Rico and used these to compute the 'true value' of seven vessel traits. We then applied a subsampling approach to quantify how error of estimated trait values depended on the proportional and absolute area of the sample annotated. We used variance partitioning to assess how the contributions of within-sample, within-species and among-species variation change with area sampled. We also assessed how sampling intensity affected the number of statistically significant comparisons between species. KEY
resultsAt low sampling intensity (i.e. ≤10 % of the total cross-section area), absolute percentage differences of estimates from true values ranged from 6 to 18 %, depending on the trait. Across samples, error declined more strongly as a function of proportional area than absolute area sampled. Nonetheless, among-species and among-individual differences explained the majority of variation in the dataset even at low sampling intensity, while variation among replicate subsamples contributed little to the total variation. Depending on the trait, the proportion of statistically significant differences between species increased by 10-21 % from low to high sampling intensity.
conclusionsOur results suggest that for broad comparisons across species, relatively low sampling intensity can yield robust estimates. However, more sampling may be required for questions demanding greater statistical power, such as within-species or within-individual comparisons. Generally, the design of wood anatomy studies should explicitly consider the accuracy and precision required by the research objectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.