| Literature DB >> 30643687 |
Changjun Meng1,2, Xiao Liu1,3, Yongfu Chai1,3, Jinshi Xu1, Ming Yue1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the case of tall trees in the field or in rugged terrain where an instrument cannot be placed operationally, beveling is a popular method used to measure in vitro photosynthesis. However, some studies and our own research have shown that net photosynthesis values measured in vitro are generally significantly lower than values measured in situ.Entities:
Keywords: Beveling method; Cracking method; Cut branches; Gas exchange parameters; Tree species
Year: 2019 PMID: 30643687 PMCID: PMC6329340 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5933
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Methods employed for the leaf photosynthesis measurements.
| Treatment | Treatment description |
|---|---|
| In situ | Connect with mother plant (CK). |
| Beveling method | Current-year branches were beveled from the incision. |
| Cracking method | End (about 3 cm from the cut) of current-year branches was cracked. |
| Splitting method | End (about 3 cm from the cut) of current-year branches was split; then a small stone was inserted into the incision. |
| Girdling method | Phloem (about 3 cm from the cut) of current-year branches was girdled. |
| Salicylic acid method | End (about 3 cm from the cut) of current-year branches was immersed in 2 mmol/L salicylic acid (SA) solution. |
The general information of the tested tree species.
The data are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).
| Trees | Abbrev | Height (m) | Diameter at breast height (cm) | Crown width (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CY | 5.2 ± 0.3 | 11.3 ± 1.1 | 3.2 ± 0.3 | |
| MD | 6.3 ± 0.4 | 12.5 ± 1.6 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | |
| HS | 3.6 ± 0.3 | 6.8 ± 0.9 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | |
| PT | 15.1 ± 0.8 | 38.9 ± 3.5 | 7.2 ± 0.4 | |
| AE | 7.7 ± 0.6 | 13.9 ± 1.8 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | |
| KP | 10.6 ± 0.9 | 35.8 ± 3.1 | 9.1 ± 0.9 | |
| DK | 8.9 ± 0.7 | 16.8 ± 1.9 | 7.8 ± 0.7 | |
| AC | 5.2 ± 0.5 | 7.6 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | |
| EJ | 3.7 ± 0.2 | 9.8 ± 1.2 | 4.1 ± 0.3 | |
| LL | 7.9 ± 0.9 | 22.1 ± 2.7 | 5.4 ± 0.7 |
Maximum photosynthesis rate (P) of 10 tree species under different treatments.
The data are means ± standard errors (n = 3). Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences among different treatments at P < 0.05 level. The values in parentheses following the data are the percentage of in-vitro P to in-situ P.
| Tree species | In Situ | Beveling | Cracking | Splitting | Girdling | Immersing in SA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| µmol (CO2) m−2 s−1 | µmol (CO2) m−2 s−1 | µmol (CO2) m−2 s−1 | µmol (CO2) m−2 s−1 | µmol (CO2) m−2 s−1 | µmol (CO2) m−2 s−1 | |||||||
| 8.50 ± 0.22 | a | 6.26 ± 0.54 (74) | b | 7.84 ± 0.24 (92) | ab | 8.18 ± 0.21(96) | a | 7.43 ± 0.26(87) | ab | 8.72 ± 1.18(103) | a | |
| 3.24 ± 0.02 | a | 2.95 ± 0.37 (91) | ab | 3.25 ± 0.68(100) | a | 2.84 ± 0.20(88) | b | 4.14 ± 0.15(128) | a | 3.56 ± 0.44(110) | a | |
| 9.93 ± 1.69 | a | 8.97 ± 0.64 (90) | a | 9.57 ± 0.07(96) | a | 7.52 ± 0.36(76) | a | 7.80 ± 0.19(79) | a | 9.16 ± 0.42(92) | a | |
| 13.70 ± 1.03 | a | 9.62 ± 1.34 (70) | b | 15.16 ± 1.38(111) | a | 10.25 ± 0.35(75) | b | 10.29 ± 0.75(75) | b | 12.39 ± 0.40(90) | ab | |
| 8.66 ± 1.35 | a | 6.28 ± 0.84(73) | ab | 7.35 ± 0.44(85) | a | 6.04 ± 0.66 (70) | b | 7.96 ± 0.81(92) | a | 7.77 ± 0.63(90) | a | |
| 11.31 ± 1.39 | a | 4.00 ± 0.13 (35) | c | 11.16 ± 1.17(99) | a | 6.68 ± 0.18(59) | b | 5.40 ± 0.55(48) | b | 9.83 ± 0.29(87) | a | |
| 14.05 ± 1.26 | a | 8.56 ± 0.93 (61) | b | 9.01 ± 2.03(64) | b | 8.59 ± 0.41(61) | b | 13.43 ± 1.60(96) | a | 11.00 ± 0.80(78) | ab | |
| 6.11 ± 0.27 | ab | 7.43 ± 0.56 (122) | a | 5.40 ± 0.40(88) | ab | 4.46 ± 0.77(73) | b | 6.43 ± 0.74(105) | a | 6.33 ± 0.35(104) | a | |
| 13.53 ± 0.68 | a | 9.75 ± 1.48 (72) | b | 7.83 ± 0.56(58) | c | 9.64 ± 0.48(71) | b | 12.04 ± 1.36(89) | a | 13.92 ± 1.19(103) | a | |
| 9.99 ± 1.02 | a | 7.29 ± 1.06 (73) | b | 10.70 ± 0.91(107) | a | 6.11 ± 0.10(61) | b | 7.18 ± 0.64(72) | b | 11.18 ± 0.73(112) | a | |
Dark respiration rate (Rd) of 10 kinds of trees under different treatments.
The values are means ± standard errors (n = 3). Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences among different treatments at P < 0.05 level. The values in parentheses following the data are the percentage of in-vitro Rd to in-situ Rd.
| Tree species | In Situ | Beveling | Cracking | Splitting | Girdling | Immersing in SA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.69 ± 0.10 | c | 0.95 ± 0.12(138) | bc | 0.99 ± 0.07(143) | bc | 1.08 ± 0.13(157) | b | 0.68 ± 0.11(99) | c | 1.60 ± 0.10(232) | a | |
| 0.28 ± 0.06 | bc | 0.39 ± 0.10(139) | b | 0.36 ± 0.07(129) | b | 0.18 ± 0.04(64) | c | 0.36 ± 0.08(129) | b | 0.55 ± 0.18(196) | a | |
| 0.59 ± 0.13 | b | 0.70 ± 0.17(118) | b | 0.79 ± 0.08(134) | b | 0.81 ± 0.21(137) | b | 0.64 ± 0.15(108) | b | 1.39 ± 0.39(236) | a | |
| 0.89 ± 0.10 | ab | 0.63 ± 0.03(71) | ab | 0.81 ± 0.21(91) | ab | 1.05 ± 0.07(118) | a | 0.40 ± 0.10(45) | b | 0.82 ± 0.11(92) | ab | |
| 0.73 ± 0.05 | a | 0.82 ± 0.20(112) | a | 0.97 ± 0.21(133) | a | 0.69 ± 0.14(95) | a | 0.73 ± 0.13(100) | a | 0.76 ± 0.20(230) | a | |
| 0.65 ± 0.18 | b | 1.09 ± 0.27(167) | a | 0.58 ± 0.14(89) | b | 1.05 ± 0.23(162) | a | 0.75 ± 0.10(115) | b | 0.73 ± 0.18(112) | b | |
| 0.28 ± 0.06 | c | 0.61 ± 0.09(218) | a | 0.28 ± 0.05(100) | c | 0.46 ± 0.12(164) | b | 0.45 ± 0.11(161) | b | 0.55 ± 0.16(196) | ab | |
| 0.64 ± 0.08 | a | 0.49 ± 0.11(76) | ab | 0.44 ± 0.05(68) | ab | 0.34 ± 0.09(53) | b | 0.45 ± 0.04(70) | ab | 0.26 ± 0.04(41) | c | |
| 0.92 ± 0.18 | ab | 0.60 ± 0.15(65) | b | 0.64 ± 0.19(69) | b | 0.75 ± 0.04(82) | b | 0.66 ± 0.16(72) | b | 1.19 ± 0.23(129) | a | |
| 0.79 ± 0.21 | b | 1.12 ± 0.20(142) | b | 1.88 ± 0.52(238) | a | 0.53 ± 0.07(67) | c | 0.49 ± 0.06(62) | c | 2.05 ± 0.36(259) | a | |
Apparent quantum efficiency (AQE) of 10 kinds of trees under different treatments.
The values are means ± standard errors (n = 3). Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences among different treatments at P < 0.05 level. The values in parentheses following the data are the percentage of in-vitro AQE to in-situ AQE.
| Tree species | In Situ mol mol−1 | Beveling mol mol−1 | Cracking mol mol−1 | Splitting mol mol−1 | Girdling mol mol−1 | Immersing in SA mol mol−1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.057 ± 0.004 | ab | 0.069 ± 0.004(121) | a | 0.054 ± 0.005(95) | b | 0.053 ± 0.001(93) | b | 0.060 ± 0.002(105) | a | 0.039 ± 0.006(68) | c | |||
| 0.044 ± 0.005 | ab | 0.048 ± 0.007(109) | ab | 0.030 ± 0.005(68) | b | 0.051 ± 0.008(116) | a | 0.028 ± 0.004(63) | b | 0.033 ± 0.009(75) | b | |||
| 0.075 ± 0.001 | ab | 0.083 ± 0.004(111) | a | 0.066 ± 0.003(88) | b | 0.070 ± 0.005(93) | b | 0.077 ± 0.002(103) | ab | 0.0480 ± 0.006(64) | c | |||
| 0.054 ± 0.005 | a | 0.062 ± 0.009(115) | a | 0.061 ± 0.004(113) | a | 0.051 ± 0.003(94) | a | 0.065 ± 0.001(120) | a | 0.053 ± 0.005(98) | a | |||
| 0.050 ± 0.004 | a | 0.044 ± 0.001(88) | a | 0.051 ± 0.004(102) | a | 0.046 ± 0.004(92) | a | 0.047 ± 0.003(94) | a | 0.041 ± 0.005(82) | a | |||
| 0.049 ± 0.004 | a | 0.050 ± 0.007(102) | a | 0.055 ± 0.003(112) | a | 0.058 ± 0.004(118) | a | 0.053 ± 0.001(108) | a | 0.049 ± 0.000(100) | a | |||
| 0.044 ± 0.004 | a | 0.059 ± 0.003(134) | a | 0.044 ± 0.006(100) | a | 0.062 ± 0.007(141) | a | 0.047 ± 0.003(107) | a | 0.061 ± 0.007(139) | a | |||
| 0.035 ± 0.003 | ab | 0.041 ± 0.004(117) | ab | 0.027 ± 0.005(77) | b | 0.045 ± 0.003(129) | ab | 0.049 ± 0.004(140) | a | 0.034 ± 0.002(97) | ab | |||
| 0.066 ± 0.002 | a | 0.053 ± 0.003(80) | b | 0.053 ± 0.001(80) | b | 0.056 ± 0.001(85) | b | 0.059 ± 0.002(89) | b | 0.058 ± 0.003(88) | b | |||
| 0.053 ± 0.006 | a | 0.055 ± 002(104) | a | 0.058 ± 0.006(109) | a | 0.044 ± 0.003(83) | a | 0.058 ± 0.003(109) | a | 0.049 ± 0.002(92) | a | |||
Light compensation point (LCP) of 10 kinds of trees under different treatments.
The values are means ± standard errors (n = 3). Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences among different treatments at P < 0.05 level.
| Tree species | In Situ | Beveling | Cracking | Splitting | Girdling | Immersing in SA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17.87 ± 2.02 | b | 12.44 ± 2.76 | c | 20.56 ± 0.69 | b | 19.20 ± 1.85 | b | 10.91 ± 2.22 | c | 28.73 ± 5.87 | a | |
| 8.60 ± 1.78 | a | 10.52 ± 1.07 | a | 11.59 ± 2.04 | a | 8.58 ± 2.05 | a | 11.05 ± 2.56 | a | 11.64 ± 3.14 | a | |
| 9.36 ± 1.78 | bc | 7.65 ± 1.59 | c | 11.48 ± 0.73 | b | 12.47 ± 2.65 | b | 7.79 ± 1.89 | c | 19.06 ± 3.53 | a | |
| 15.93 ± 0.95 | a | 10.28 ± 1.23 | b | 12.51 ± 3.15 | ab | 19.58 ± 0.23 | a | 6.50 ± 1.49 | c | 15.02 ± 2.32 | a | |
| 12.68 ± 1.44 | a | 15.35 ± 4.96 | a | 18.16 ± 4.51 | a | 12.59 ± 2.94 | a | 15.01 ± 3.49 | a | 17.04 ± 2.98 | a | |
| 12.33 ± 3.11 | a | 15.17 ± 2.46 | a | 12.60 ± 3.84 | a | 16.65 ± 2.67 | a | 13.44 ± 1.98 | a | 14.38 ± 3.53 | a | |
| 6.48 ± 1.64 | b | 11.87 ± 2.23 | a | 6.53 ± 2.13 | b | 7.15 ± 1.37 | b | 6.78 ± 0.76 | b | 6.97 ± 1.67 | b | |
| 11.68 ± 4.08 | a | 12.07 ± 3.23 | a | 10.34 ± 2.60 | a | 7.59 ± 2.05 | b | 8.93 ± 0.36 | ab | 7.20 ± 2.59 | b | |
| 13.61 ± 2.95 | a | 10.45 ± 2.77 | a | 11.71 ± 2.67 | a | 12.86 ± 0.48 | a | 10.86 ± 2.32 | a | 15.01 ± 3.06 | a | |
| 14.97 ± 4.20 | b | 18.68 ± 2.58 | a | 22.23 ± 6.54 | a | 11.52 ± 1.03 | bc | 9.81 ± 1.16 | c | 23.10 ± 5.20 | a | |
Light saturation point (LSP) of 10 kinds of trees under different treatments.
The values are means ± standard errors (n = 3). Different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences among different treatments at P < 0.05 level.
| Tree species | In Situ | Beveling | Cracking | Splitting | Girdling | Immersing in SA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 711.32 ± 57.26 | b | 432.45 ± 38.49 | c | 703.64 ± 82.70 | b | 735.73 ± 29.87 | b | 582.94 ± 41.79 | bc | 1,067.50 ± 49.02 | a | |
| 358.63 ± 45.89 | bc | 310.90 ± 74.84 | c | 514.86 ± 33.38 | ab | 281.60 ± 67.68 | c | 438.80 ± 114.59 | b | 609.48 ± 160.12 | a | |
| 614.48 ± 91.43 | b | 508.07 ± 53.87 | b | 679.96 ± 29.18 | b | 515.19 ± 51.96 | b | 476.09 ± 10.26 | b | 943.48 ± 116.67 | a | |
| 1,191.80 ± 35.32 | a | 730.07 ± 16.73 | b | 1,151.50 ± 106.26 | a | 954.23 ± 87.80 | ab | 732.93 ± 55.35 | b | 1,107.60 ± 130.12 | a | |
| 840.69 ± 94.89 | a | 648.65 ± 78.72 | a | 694.25 ± 86.90 | a | 659.19 ± 139.07 | a | 784.19 ± 32.29 | a | 890.70 ± 40.57 | a | |
| 908.50 ± 159.10 | a | 962.58 ± 45.71 | a | 844.31 ± 48.29 | a | 854.59 ± 19.18 | a | 884.68 ± 42.13 | a | 941.74 ± 25.96 | a | |
| 886.50 ± 121.41 | b | 1,197.70 ± 110.77 | a | 969.48 ± 196.94 | b | 960.99 ± 64.09 | b | 980.40 ± 152.86 | b | 920.19 ± 10.60 | b | |
| 859.74 ± 60.81 | a | 759.50 ± 115.55 | a | 706.60 ± 202.73 | a | 475.05 ± 108.21 | b | 629.53 ± 96.20 | ab | 436.01 ± 94.90 | b | |
| 958.54 ± 21.97 | ab | 863.65 ± 128.23 | ab | 696.89 ± 60.06 | b | 963.79 ± 118.62 | ab | 803.26 ± 42.94 | b | 1,129.90 ± 94.51 | a | |
| 636.76 ± 111.08 | bc | 898.16 ± 88.61 | b | 879.53 ± 89.21 | b | 655.93 ± 38.44 | bc | 574.33 ± 26.18 | c | 1,104.60 ± 98.04 | a | |
Figure 1Effects of three treatments on (A) transpiration rate (Tr), (B) stomatal conductance (g…), (C) intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) of 10 kinds of trees.
The values are means (n = 3). Error bars show standard errors. Asterisks denote significant differences (P < 0.05) between the in-vitro methods and in-situ method. The abbreviations of 10 kinds of trees are shown in Table 2.