Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hultine, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hultine, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Hultine, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 52, No. 355, pp. 369-373, February 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press

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

Kevin R. Hultine1,2,3 and John D. Marshall1

1 Department of Forest Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843-1133, USA
2 Department of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

Alternative methods were compared for determining the stomatal density of needles from two pine species. Densities estimated from air-dried, whole needles using a binocular dissecting scope were compared to densities estimated from vacuum-dried, intact needles using a scanning electron microscope and expanded peels (or macerated cuticles) using a compound light microscope. Differences among methods were expected from two sources: (1) expansion and shrinkage as a function of water content, and (2) differences in geometry of the measured surface. Estimates from the dissecting scope were similar to those from scanning electron microscopy (t=0.509, n=21, P=0.62), presumably because both used dried, but otherwise intact whole needles. Light microscopy estimates, however, were lower than dissecting scope estimates (t=-2.307, n=13, P=0.04). After adjusting for expansion due to hydration and changes in needle geometry, differences disappeared (t=-1.205, n=13, P=0.25). These results are an important consideration for researchers reconstructing palaeo-atmospheric conditions and assessing plant response to environmental change.

Key words: Stomatal density, Pinus ponderosa, Pinus taeda, palaeo-atmospheric reconstructions, environmental change.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.