Non-structural carbohydrates in woody plants compared among laboratories

Published Date

• Received November 22, 2014.
• Accepted July 9, 2015.

Author 

Audrey G. Quentin1,2,46, 

Elizabeth A. Pinkard1, 

Michael G. Ryan3,4,5, 

David T. Tissue2, 

L. Scott Baggett5, 

Henry D. Adams6, 

Pascale Maillard7, 

Jacqueline Marchand8, 

Simon M. Landhäusser9, 

André Lacointe10,11, 

Yves Gibon12,13, 

William R.L. Anderegg14, 

Shinichi Asao3,4, 

Owen K. Atkin15,16, 

Marc Bonhomme10,11, 

Caroline Claye17, 

Pak S. Chow9, 

Anne Clément-Vidal18, 

Noel W. Davies19, 

L. Turin Dickman6, 

Rita Dumbur20, 

David S. Ellsworth2, 

Kristen Falk21, 

Lucía Galiano22,23, 

José M. Grünzweig20, 

Henrik Hartmann24, 

Günter Hoch25, 

Sharon Hood26, 

Joanna E. Jones17, 

Takayoshi Koike27, 

Iris Kuhlmann24, 

Francisco Lloret28,29, 

Melchor Maestro30, 

Shawn D. Mansfield31, 

Jordi Martínez-Vilalta28,29, 

Mickael Maucourt13,32, 

Nathan G. McDowell6, 

Annick Moing12,13, 

Bertrand Muller33, 

Sergio G. Nebauer34, 

Ülo Niinemets35, 

Sara Palacio30, 

Frida Piper36, 

Eran Raveh37, 

Andreas Richter38, 

Gaëlle Rolland33, 

Teresa Rosas28, 

Brigitte Saint Joanis10,11, 

Anna Sala26, 

Renee A. Smith2, 

Frank Sterck39, 

Joseph R. Stinziano40, 

Mari Tobias35, 

Faride Unda31, 

Makoto Watanabe41, 

Danielle A. Way40,42, 

Lasantha K. Weerasinghe15,43, 

Birgit Wild38,44, 

Erin Wiley9 and 

David R. Woodruff45

1. ¹CSIRO Land and Water, Private Bag 12, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
2. ²Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia
3. ³Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1499, USA
4. ⁴Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1401, USA
5. ⁵USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA
6. ⁶Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA
7. ⁷INRA, UMR 1137, Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières, Centre de Nancy, F-54280 Champenoux, France
8. ⁸INRA, UMR 1137, Ecologie et Ecophysiologie Forestières, Plateforme Technique d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle (OC 081) Centre de Nancy, F-54280 Champenoux, France
9. ⁹Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E3, Canada
10. ¹⁰INRA, UMR 0547 PIAF, F:63100 Clermont-Ferrand, France
11. ¹¹Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, UMR 0547 PIAF, F:6310 Clermont-Ferrand, France
12. ¹²UMR1332, Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie, INRA, Bordeaux University, 71 avenue Edouard Bourlaux, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
13. ¹³Plateforme Métabolome du Centre de Génomique Fonctionnelle Bordeaux, MetaboHUB, IBVM, Centre INRA, 71 avenue Edouard Bourlaux, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
14. ¹⁴Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08540, USA
15. ¹⁵Division of Plant Sciences, Research School of Biology, Building 46, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia
16. ¹⁶ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia
17. ¹⁷Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, School of Land and Food, Private Bag 98, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
18. ¹⁸CIRAD, UMR AGAP, F-34398 Montpellier, France
19. ¹⁹Central Science Laboratory, Private Bag 74, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
20. ²⁰Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, Rehovot 7610001, Israel
21. ²¹Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
22. ²²Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
23. ²³Institute of Hydrology, Freiburg University, Fahnenbergplatz, D-79098 Freiburg, Germany
24. ²⁴Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans-Knöll Str. 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
25. ²⁵Department of Environmental Sciences - Botany, University of Basel, Schönbeinstrasse 6, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
26. ²⁶Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula MT-59812, USA
27. ²⁷Silviculture and Forest Ecological Studies, Hokkaido University Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8589, Japan
28. ²⁸CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
29. ²⁹Universidad Autònoma Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
30. ³⁰Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología (IPE-CSIC), Av. Nuestra Señora de la Victoria s/n, 22700 Jaca, Huesca, Spain
31. ³¹Department of Wood Science, University of British Columbia, V6T 1Z4 Vancouver, Canada
32. ³²Université Bordeaux, UMR 1332, Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie, 71 avenue Edouard Bourlaux, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
33. ³³INRA, UMR 759 LEPSE, Montpellier, F-34060 France
34. ³⁴Plant Production Department, Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia, Camino de vera s.n. 46022-Valencia, Spain
35. ³⁵Department of Plant Physiology, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51014 Tartu, Estonia
36. ³⁶Centro de Investigación en Ecosistemas de la Patagonia (CIEP), Simpson 471, Coyhaique, Chile
37. ³⁷Department of Fruit Trees Sciences, Institute of Plant Sciences, A.R.O., Gilat Research Center, D.N. Negev 85289, Israel
38. ³⁸Department of Microbiology and Ecosystem Science, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
39. ³⁹Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen University, Postbox 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands
40. ⁴⁰Department of Biology, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, N6A 5B7, ON, Canada
41. ⁴¹Institute of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology Fuchu, Tokyo 183-8509, Japan
42. ⁴²Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27708, USA
43. ⁴³Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, 20400, Sri Lanka
44. ⁴⁴Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Guldhedsgatan 5A, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
45. ⁴⁵USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

1. ↵46Corresponding author (audrey.quentin@csiro.au)

1. Maurizio Mencuccini, handling Editor

+Author Affiliations

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⁻¹for 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 R² = 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.

For further details log on website :
http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/11/1146.abstract