Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(8)
It can partly explain the greater wood growth on the lower side of branches.
These results indicated that gravity stress significantly increased wood formation on the lower side of branches.
Average MFA in CW (lower side) of branches was 33.2 degrees, significantly larger than that of OW (26.2 degrees).
In the cross-section of the six branch discs, average radius of the lower side xylem (CW) was 4.6 cm, significantly longer than that of total OW formed on the upper side of branches (3.1 cm, P-value = 0.0002).
Compared to its opposite wood (OW) formed on the upper side of branches and bent trunks, CW has shorter tracheids, larger microfibril angle (MFA), greater shrinkage, higher density, lower stiffness, more lignin and less cellulose [ 1, 3– 10].
Up-regulation of three light signalling genes (light-inducible protein ATLS1, light-induced protein-like and phytochrome) in CW of radiata pine branches could be a result of reduced light radiation on the lower side of branches.
Similar(52)
Then, differential gene transcription between the upper (OW) and lower sides of branches (CW) was investigated using radiata pine cDNA microarrays.
In Eucalyptus nitens a beta-tubulin gene was preferentially expressed in xylem from the upper sides of branches which had low MFA [ 49] and its over-expression in transgenic eucalypt xylem tissue directly influences MFA [ 25].
Although one previous study with eucalyptus branches identified a few cell wall genes in response to gravity stress in angiosperms [ 17], wood property variation and the xylem transcriptome changes between the upper and lower sides of branches remains largely unknown in any conifer species.
Angiosperms develop tension wood on the upper side of drooping branches.
Since TW formed on the upper side of angiosperm branches also had a drastically declined MFA and larger stiffness [ 17, 21], this pull-push mechanism appears to be conserved in gymnosperms and angiosperms.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com