Literature DB >> 15501912

A/C(i) curve analysis across a range of woody plant species: influence of regression analysis parameters and mesophyll conductance.

Daniel K Manter1, Julia Kerrigan.   

Abstract

The analysis and interpretation of A/C(i) curves (net CO(2) assimilation rate, A, versus calculated substomatal CO(2) concentration, C(i)) is dependent upon a number of underlying assumptions. The influence of the C(i) value at which the A/C(i) curve switches between the Rubisco- and electron transport-limited portions of the curve was examined on A/C(i) curve parameter estimates, as well as the effect of mesophyll CO(2) conductance (g(m)) values on estimates of the maximum rate of Rubisco-mediated carboxylation (V(cmax)). Based on an analysis using 19 woody species from the Pacific Northwest, significant variation occurred in the C(i) value where the Rubisco- and electron transport-limited portions of the curve intersect (C(i_t)), ranging from 20 Pa to 152 Pa and averaging c. 71 Pa and 37 Pa for conifer and broadleaf species, respectively. Significant effects on estimated A/C(i) parameters (e.g. V(cmax)) may arise when preliminary estimates of C(i_t), necessary for the multiple regression analyses, are set either too high or too low. However, when the appropriate threshold is used, a significant relationship between A/C(i) and chlorophyll fluorescence estimates of carboxylation is achieved. The use of the V(cmax) parameter to describe accurately the Rubisco activity from the A/C(i) curve analysis is also dependent upon the assumption that C(i) is approximately equal to chloroplast CO(2) concentrations (C(c)). If leaf mesophyll conductance is low, C(c) will be much lower than C(i) and will result in an underestimation of V(cmax) from A/C(i) curves. A large range of mesophyll conductance (g(m)) values was observed across the 19 species (0.005+/-0.002 to 0.189+/-0.011 mol m(-2) s(-1) for Tsuga heterophylla and Quercus garryana, respectively) and, on average, g(m) was 1.9 times lower for the conifer species (0.058+/-0.017 mol m(-2) s(-1) for conifers versus 0.112+/-0.020 mol m(-2) s(-1) for broadleaves). When this mesophyll limitation was accounted for in V(cmax) estimates, considerable variation still existed between species, but the difference in V(cmax) between conifer and broadleaf species was reduced from c. 11 micromol m(-2) s(-1) to 4 micromol m(-2) s(-1). For example, A/C(i) curve estimates of V(cmax) were 31.2+/-6.2 and 42.2+/-4.4 micromol m(-2) s(-1), and A/C(c) curve estimates were 41.2+/-7.1 micromol m(-2) s(-1) and 45.0+/-4.8 micromol m(-2) s(-1), for the conifer and broadleaf species, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15501912     DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erh260

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Bot        ISSN: 0022-0957            Impact factor:   6.992


  19 in total

1.  Lateral diffusion of CO2 in leaves is not sufficient to support photosynthesis.

Authors:  James I L Morison; Emily Gallouët; Tracy Lawson; Gabriel Cornic; Raphaèle Herbin; Neil R Baker
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2005-08-19       Impact factor: 8.340

2.  Molecular interactions between the specialist herbivore Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae) and its natural host Nicotiana attenuata. VII. Changes in the plant's proteome.

Authors:  Ashok P Giri; Hendrik Wünsche; Sirsha Mitra; Jorge A Zavala; Alexander Muck; Ales Svatos; Ian T Baldwin
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 8.340

3.  Diverse photosynthetic capacity of global ecosystems mapped by satellite chlorophyll fluorescence measurements.

Authors:  Liming He; Jing M Chen; Jane Liu; Ting Zheng; Rong Wang; Joanna Joiner; Shuren Chou; Bin Chen; Yang Liu; Ronggao Liu; Cheryl Rogers
Journal:  Remote Sens Environ       Date:  2019-07-27       Impact factor: 10.164

4.  Leaf photosynthetic rate and mesophyll cell anatomy changes during ontogenesis in backcrossed indica × japonica rice inbred lines.

Authors:  Wenxing He; Shunsuke Adachi; Rowan F Sage; Taiichiro Ookawa; Tadashi Hirasawa
Journal:  Photosynth Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Does chloroplast size influence photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency?

Authors:  Yong Li; Binbin Ren; Lei Ding; Qirong Shen; Shaobing Peng; Shiwei Guo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Interactive effects of elevated CO2, warming, and drought on photosynthesis of Deschampsia flexuosa in a temperate heath ecosystem.

Authors:  K R Albert; H Ro-Poulsen; T N Mikkelsen; A Michelsen; L van der Linden; C Beier
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2011-05-16       Impact factor: 6.992

7.  Differences on photosynthetic limitations between leaf margins and leaf centers under potassium deficiency for Brassica napus L.

Authors:  Zhifeng Lu; Tao Ren; Yonghui Pan; Xiaokun Li; Rihuan Cong; Jianwei Lu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Transgenic Rice Expressing Ictb and FBP/Sbpase Derived from Cyanobacteria Exhibits Enhanced Photosynthesis and Mesophyll Conductance to CO2.

Authors:  Han Yu Gong; Yang Li; Gen Fang; Dao Heng Hu; Wen Bin Jin; Zhao Hai Wang; Yang Sheng Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The Importance of Non-Diffusional Factors in Determining Photosynthesis of Two Contrasting Quinoa Ecotypes (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Subjected to Salinity Conditions.

Authors:  José Delatorre-Herrera; Karina B Ruiz; Manuel Pinto
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-06

10.  Understanding the low photosynthetic rates of sun and shade coffee leaves: bridging the gap on the relative roles of hydraulic, diffusive and biochemical constraints to photosynthesis.

Authors:  Samuel C V Martins; Jeroni Galmés; Paulo C Cavatte; Lucas F Pereira; Marília C Ventrella; Fábio M Damatta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.