Elias Kaiser1, Johannes Kromdijk2, Jeremy Harbinson3, Ep Heuvelink3, Leo F M Marcelis3. 1. Horticulture and Product Physiology Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands elias.kaiser@wur.nl. 2. Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, 1206 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL, USA. 3. Horticulture and Product Physiology Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plants depend on photosynthesis for growth. In nature, factors such as temperature, humidity, CO2 partial pressure, and spectrum and intensity of irradiance often fluctuate. Whereas irradiance intensity is most influential and has been studied in detail, understanding of interactions with other factors is lacking. METHODS: We tested how photosynthetic induction after dark-light transitions was affected by CO2 partial pressure (20, 40, 80 Pa), leaf temperatures (15·5, 22·8, 30·5 °C), leaf-to-air vapour pressure deficits (VPDleaf-air; 0·5, 0·8, 1·6, 2·3 kPa) and blue irradiance (0-20 %) in tomato leaves (Solanum lycopersicum). KEY RESULTS: Rates of photosynthetic induction strongly increased with CO2 partial pressure, due to increased apparent Rubisco activation rates and reduced diffusional limitations. High leaf temperature produced slightly higher induction rates, and increased intrinsic water use efficiency and diffusional limitation. High VPDleaf-air slowed down induction rates and apparent Rubisco activation and (at 2·3 kPa) induced damped stomatal oscillations. Blue irradiance had no effect. Slower apparent Rubisco activation in elevated VPDleaf-air may be explained by low leaf internal CO2 partial pressure at the beginning of induction. CONCLUSIONS: The environmental factors CO2 partial pressure, temperature and VPDleaf-air had significant impacts on rates of photosynthetic induction, as well as on underlying diffusional, carboxylation and electron transport processes. Furthermore, maximizing Rubisco activation rates would increase photosynthesis by at most 6-8 % in ambient CO2 partial pressure (across temperatures and humidities), while maximizing rates of stomatal opening would increase photosynthesis by at most 1-3 %.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plants depend on photosynthesis for growth. In nature, factors such as temperature, humidity, CO2 partial pressure, and spectrum and intensity of irradiance often fluctuate. Whereas irradiance intensity is most influential and has been studied in detail, understanding of interactions with other factors is lacking. METHODS: We tested how photosynthetic induction after dark-light transitions was affected by CO2 partial pressure (20, 40, 80 Pa), leaf temperatures (15·5, 22·8, 30·5 °C), leaf-to-air vapour pressure deficits (VPDleaf-air; 0·5, 0·8, 1·6, 2·3 kPa) and blue irradiance (0-20 %) in tomato leaves (Solanum lycopersicum). KEY RESULTS: Rates of photosynthetic induction strongly increased with CO2 partial pressure, due to increased apparent Rubisco activation rates and reduced diffusional limitations. High leaf temperature produced slightly higher induction rates, and increased intrinsic water use efficiency and diffusional limitation. High VPDleaf-air slowed down induction rates and apparent Rubisco activation and (at 2·3 kPa) induced damped stomatal oscillations. Blue irradiance had no effect. Slower apparent Rubisco activation in elevated VPDleaf-air may be explained by low leaf internal CO2 partial pressure at the beginning of induction. CONCLUSIONS: The environmental factors CO2 partial pressure, temperature and VPDleaf-air had significant impacts on rates of photosynthetic induction, as well as on underlying diffusional, carboxylation and electron transport processes. Furthermore, maximizing Rubisco activation rates would increase photosynthesis by at most 6-8 % in ambient CO2 partial pressure (across temperatures and humidities), while maximizing rates of stomatal opening would increase photosynthesis by at most 1-3 %.
Authors: Elias Kaiser; Alejandro Morales; Jeremy Harbinson; Ep Heuvelink; Aina E Prinzenberg; Leo F M Marcelis Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alejandro Morales; Xinyou Yin; Jeremy Harbinson; Steven M Driever; Jaap Molenaar; David M Kramer; Paul C Struik Journal: Plant Physiol Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 8.340
Authors: Elias Kaiser; Dianfan Zhou; Ep Heuvelink; Jeremy Harbinson; Alejandro Morales; Leo F M Marcelis Journal: J Exp Bot Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 6.992
Authors: Liana G Acevedo-Siaca; Robert Coe; Yu Wang; Johannes Kromdijk; W Paul Quick; Stephen P Long Journal: New Phytol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 10.151
Authors: Iván Jauregui; Shane A Rothwell; Samuel H Taylor; Martin A J Parry; Elizabete Carmo-Silva; Ian C Dodd Journal: Plant Methods Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.993