Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among laboratories

Open access
Quentin, Audrey G., Pinkard, Elizabeth A., Ryan, Michael G., Tissue, David T., Baggett, L. Scott, Adams, Henry D., Maillard, Pascale, Marchand, Jacqueline, Landhäusser, Simon M., Lacointe, André, Gibon, Yves, Anderegg, William R.L., Asao, Shinichi, Atkin, Owen K., Bonhomme, Marc, Claye, Caroline, Chow, Pak S., Clément-Vidal, Anne, Davies, Noel W., Dickman, L. Turin, Dumbur, Rita, Ellsworth, David S., Falk, Kristen, Galiano, Lucía, Grünzweig, José M., Hartmann, Henrik, Hoch, Günter, Hood, Sharon, Jones, Joanna E., Koike, Takayoshi, Kuhlmann, Iris, Lloret, Francisco, Maestro, Melchor, Mansfield, Shawn D., Martínez-Vilalta, Jordi, Maucourt, Mickael, McDowell, Nathan G., Moing, Annick, Muller, Bertrand, Nebauer, Sergio G., Niinemets, Ülo, Palacio, Sara, Piper, Frida, Raveh, Eran, Richter, Andreas, Rolland, Gaëlle, Rosas, Teresa, Saint Joanis, Brigitte, Sala, Anna, Smith, Renee A., Sterck, Frank, Stinziano, Joseph R., Tobias, Mari, Unda, Faride, Watanabe, Makoto, Way, Danielle A., Weerasinghe, Lasantha K., Wild, Birgit, Wiley, Erin, Woodruff, David R.·2015·Tree Physiology

Abstract

Non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) in plant tissue are frequently quantified to make inferences about plant responses to environmental conditions. Laboratories publishing estimates of NSC of woody plants use many different methods to evaluate NSC. We asked whether NSC estimates in the recent literature could be quantitatively compared among studies. We also asked whether any differences among laboratories were related to the extraction and quantification methods used to determine starch and sugar concentrations. These questions were addressed by sending sub-samples collected from five woody plant tissues, which varied in NSC content and chemical composition, to 29 laboratories. Each laboratory analyzed the samples with their laboratory-specific protocols, based on recent publications, to determine concentrations of soluble sugars, starch and their sum, total NSC. Laboratory estimates differed substantially for all samples. For example, estimates for Eucalyptus globulus leaves (EGL) varied from 23 to 116 (mean = 56) mg g(-1) for soluble sugars, 6-533 (mean = 94) mg g(-1) for starch and 53-649 (mean = 153) mg g(-1) for total NSC. Mixed model analysis of variance showed that much of the variability among laboratories was unrelated to the categories we used for extraction and quantification methods (method category R(2) = 0.05-0.12 for soluble sugars, 0.10-0.33 for starch and 0.01-0.09 for total NSC). For EGL, the difference between the highest and lowest least squares means for categories in the mixed model analysis was 33 mg g(-1) for total NSC, compared with the range of laboratory estimates of 596 mg g(-1). Laboratories were reasonably consistent in their ranks of estimates among tissues for starch (r = 0.41-0.91), but less so for total NSC (r = 0.45-0.84) and soluble sugars (r = 0.11-0.83). Our results show that NSC estimates for woody plant tissues cannot be compared among laboratories. The relative changes in NSC between treatments measured within a laboratory may be comparable within and between laboratories, especially for starch. To obtain comparable NSC estimates, we suggest that users can either adopt the reference method given in this publication, or report estimates for a portion of samples using the reference method, and report estimates for a standard reference material. Researchers interested in NSC estimates should work to identify and adopt standard methods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/treephys/tpv073

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Quentin, A. G., Pinkard, E. A., Ryan, M. G., Tissue, D. T., Baggett, L. S., Adams, H. D., Maillard, P., Marchand, J., Landhäusser, S. M., Lacointe, A., Gibon, Y., Anderegg, W. R. L., Asao, S., Atkin, O. K., Bonhomme, M., Claye, C., Chow, P. S., Clément-Vidal, A., Davies, N. W., Dickman, L. T., Dumbur, R., Ellsworth, D. S., Falk, K., Galiano, L., Grünzweig, J. M., Hartmann, H., Hoch, G., Hood, S., Jones, J. E., Koike, T., Kuhlmann, I., Lloret, F., Maestro, M., Mansfield, S. D., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Maucourt, M., McDowell, N. G., Moing, A., Muller, B., Nebauer, S. G., Niinemets, Ü., Palacio, S., Piper, F., Raveh, E., Richter, A., Rolland, G., Rosas, T., Saint Joanis, B., Sala, A., Smith, R. A., Sterck, F., Stinziano, J. R., Tobias, M., Unda, F., Watanabe, M., Way, D. A., Weerasinghe, L. K., Wild, B., Wiley, E., & Woodruff, D. R.
Venue
Tree Physiology
Published
2015-09-29
Volume
35
Issue
11
Pages
tpv073
ISSN
  • 0829-318X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-4469
OpenAlex
W2133692493
Cited by
247
References
2
FWCI
19.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among laboratories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/treephys/tpv073
The paper
Quentin, A. G., Pinkard, E. A., Ryan, M. G., Tissue, D. T., Baggett, L. S., Adams, H. D., Maillard, P., Marchand, J., Landhäusser, S. M., Lacointe, A., Gibon, Y., Anderegg, W. R. L., Asao, S., Atkin, O. K., Bonhomme, M., Claye, C., Chow, P. S., Clément-Vidal, A., Davies, N. W., . . . Woodruff, D. R. (2015). Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among laboratories. Tree Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpv073

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.