| Literature DB >> 30715494 |
Teresa E Gimeno1,2,3, Noelia Saavedra1,4, Jérôme Ogée1, Belinda E Medlyn5, Lisa Wingate1.
Abstract
The primary function of stomata is to minimize plant water loss while maintaining CO2 assimilation. Stomatal water loss incurs an indirect cost to photosynthesis in the form of non-stomatal limitations (NSL) via reduced carboxylation capacity (CAP) and/or mesophyll conductance (MES). Two optimal formulations for stomatal conductance (gs) arise from the assumption of each type of NSL. In reality, both NSL could coexist, but one may prevail for a given leaf ontogenetic stage or plant functional type, depending on leaf morphology. We tested the suitability of two gs formulations (CAP versus MES) on species from six plant functional types (C4 crop, C3 grass, fern, conifer, evergreen, and deciduous angiosperm trees). MES and CAP parameters (the latter proportional to the marginal water cost to carbon gain) decreased with water availability only in deciduous angiosperm trees, while there were no clear differences between leaf ontogenetic stages. Both CAP and MES formulations fit our data in most cases, particularly under low water availability. For ferns, stomata appeared to operate optimally only when subjected to water stress. Overall, the CAP formulation provided a better fit across all species, suggesting that sub-daily stomatal responses minimize NSL by reducing carboxylation capacity predominantly, regardless of leaf morphology and ontogenetic stage.Entities:
Keywords: Drought; fern; mesophyll conductance; ontogeny; optimization; photosynthesis; plant functional type; stomatal conductance; transpiration; water use efficiency
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30715494 PMCID: PMC6411372 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erz020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Mean ±SE (n=5–7) predawn leaf water potential (Ψpd) for the study species in the trial experiment and in the August 2015 campaign under the well-watered (WW) and low water availability (LW) regimes
| Species | Trial experiment | August 2015 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max Ψpd (MPa) | Min Ψpd (MPa) | Ψpd WW (MPa) | Ψpd LW (MPa) | |
|
| –0.56±0.1 | –2.31±0.25 | –0.51±0.12 | –1.47±0.34 |
|
| –0.58±0.28 | –2.03±0.3 | –0.58±0.28 | –0.97±0.4 |
|
| –0.46±0.04 | –2.24±0.22 | –0.48±0.05 | –1.38±0.25 |
|
| –0.32±0.04 | –1.19±0.11 | –0.37±0.1 | –0.54±0.08 |
|
| –0.47±0.13 | –1.24±0.06 | –0.45±0.07 | –0.89±0.25 |
|
| –0.46±0.21 | –2.44±0.2 | –0.53±0.09 | –0.83±0.24 |
|
| –0.28±0.03 | –1.94±0.26 | –0.4±0.05 | –1.42±0.29 |
In August 2015, there were no significant differences among species (F=1.9, P=0.11) and plants in the LW treatment had significantly lower Ψpd (F=15.9, P<0.01).
Fig. 1.Mean ±SE (n=3–5) vapour pressure deficit (Dw), stomatal conductance to CO2 (gsc), and photosynthesis (Anet) measured in mature (Mat) and developing (Dev) leaves and in well-watered (WW) and low-watered (LW) plants during the day. Circles and triangles depict measurements from the June 2015 and August 2015 campaigns, respectively. Different shades correspond to measurements on WW versus LW plants or to measurements on mature versus developing leaves. Note the change in scale for Anet in the Z. mays panel.
Estimated intercept (g0) and slope parameters (±SE), RMSE, and AIC for the two formulations for stomatal conductance, CAP (ξ and g1) and MES (Emax), for all the study species in mature and developing leaves (June 2015) and for well-watered and low watered plants (August 2015), and results of the model intercomparison
| Species | Campaign | Leaf age | Treatment | CAP | MES | χ2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ξ (mmol0.5 mol−0.5) |
| RMSE (%) | AIC |
|
| RMSE (%) | AIC | |||||
|
| June 2015 | Mature | Well-watered | 1.3±11.4 | 2±0.7 | 0.4±0.1 | 1.57 | –120 | 9.4±18.5 |
| 1.89 | –111 |
|
|
| 4.1±7.7 |
|
| 1.94 | –90 | –4.3±14.4 |
| 2.30 | –72 | <0.01 | |||
|
| 1.5±4.7 |
|
| 1.21 | –108 | –17.2±10.4 |
| 1.52 | –86 | <0.01 | |||
|
| 3.2±7.8 |
|
| 1.76 | –99 | –19.5±13.7 |
| 2.11 | –92 |
| |||
|
| –0.1±7.4 |
|
| 1.11 | –92 |
|
| 1.83 | –77 |
| |||
|
| 3.1±10.2 |
|
| 1.62 | –81 | –20.1±20.6 |
| 2.23 | –70 |
| |||
|
|
| 1.3±1.5 | 0.3±0.3 | 0.99 | –103 | 21.7±12.6 | 0.6±0.7 | 1.30 | –93 |
| |||
|
| June 2015 | Developing | Well-watered |
| 0.9±0.4 | 0.2±0.1 | 0.95 | –143 | –4.7±11.1 |
| 1.40 | –125 |
|
|
| –16.8±13.4 |
|
| 2.64 | –74 | –32.2 ± 21 |
| 3.16 | –67 |
| |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.96 | –123 |
|
| 0.90 | –126 |
| |||
|
| 8.4±12 |
|
| 1.97 | –84 | –0.7±19.1 |
| 2.23 | –80 |
| |||
|
| 3.1±9.1 |
|
| 2.02 | –83 | –19.7±15.3 |
| 2.55 | –75 |
| |||
|
| –4.2±13.2 |
|
| 2.38 | –68 | –29.1±16.8 |
| 2.27 | –70 |
| |||
|
|
| –1±12.8 | –0.2±2.6 | 9.66 | –23 | 59.3±54.9 | 4.6±11.9 | 9.39 | –24 |
| |||
|
| August 2015 | Mature | Well-watered | 7.8 ±8 | 0.9±0.9 | 0.2±0.2 | 1.23 | –48 | 4.7±17.8 |
| 2.06 | –38 |
|
|
| –0.5±8.5 |
|
| 1.76 | –57 | –26.9±16 |
| 1.81 | –44 | <0.01 | |||
|
| –6.5±4.6 |
|
| 1.06 | –107 |
|
| 1.69 | –90 |
| |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.85 | –81 | –10.7±8 |
| 0.95 | –56 | <0.01 | |||
|
| 39.8±31.2 | 2±15.5 | 0.4±3.1 | 4.70 | –43 | 14.9±51.7 | 5.9±16 | 4.58 | –44 |
| |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.80 | –103 | 0.8±5.7 |
| 0.93 | –91 | <0.01 | |||
|
| 24.2±15.7 | 3.4±3.5 | 0.7±0.7 | 2.23 | –37 | 10.8±25.9 | 3.9±4.4 | 2.42 | –35 |
| |||
|
| August 2015 | Mature | Low-watered |
|
|
| 0.20 | –138 | 0.8±2.3 |
| 0.27 | –89 | <0.01 |
|
|
|
|
| 0.32 | –133 | –2.6±2.6 |
| 0.37 | –82 | <0.01 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.50 | –172 | –0.1±3.1 |
| 0.56 | –167 |
| |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.66 | –109 | –7.7±4.7 |
| 0.52 | –58 | <0.01 | |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.53 | –155 | 5.5±3 |
| 0.55 | –153 |
| |||
|
| 0.2±2.4 |
|
| 0.70 | –115 | –9.4±5.1 |
| 1.09 | –99 |
| |||
|
|
|
|
| 0.28 | –101 | –2.6±2.6 |
| 0.29 | –71 | <0.01 | |||
Significant (P<0.05) results (χ2) and coefficients significantly different from 0 are in bold.
Fig. 2.Relationship between predicted and observed stomatal conductance to CO2 (gsc) according to the CAP (A and C) and MES (B and D) formulations for mature and developing leaves (A and B) and under well-watered and low-watered conditions (C and D) for the study species for which the CAP and MES fits were significant. The dashed grey line depicts the 1:1 line. The slope of each linear relationship is indicated on each plot (with its corresponding 95% CI).
Fig. 3.Parameter estimate (±95% CI) for the CAP formulation (ξ) fitted for (A) mature and developing leaves (June 2015 campaign, only well-watered plants) and (B) well-watered and low-watered plants (August 2015 campaign, only mature leaves), for all study species. Non-overlapping CIs indicate significant differences (P<0.05) among species, leaf ages, or watering treatments. Grey symbols indicate species for which the CAP fit was non-significant.
Results of the analyses of homogeneity of slopes to test for the effects of species, leaf age (mature versus developing), and watering treatment on optimization behaviour according to equation 4 (MES index is √A/1.6D(Ca-Γ*))
| Campaign | Effect |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| June | MES | 205.8 |
|
| MES×age | 1.7 | 0.195 | |
| MES×species. | 3.7 |
| |
| MES×age×species | 0.6 | 0.742 | |
| August | MES | 579.2 |
|
| MES×treatment | 32.2 |
| |
| MES×species | 5.3 |
| |
| MES×treatment×species. | 1.1 | 0.341 |
Significant effects (P<0.05) are indicated in bold.
Fig. 4.(A) Parameter estimate for the CAP model (ξ) multiplied by the square root of temperature-corrected estimated maximum carboxylation capacity (, only for the six C3 species) and (B) parameter estimate for the MES model (Emax), both plotted against mean predawn leaf water potential (Ψpd). Error bars indicate ±SE. Parameters ξ and Emax were fitted to mature leaves measured in the August campaign in well-watered and low-watered plants. Grey symbols without vertical error bars indicate species for which the CAP or MES fit were non-significant (P>0.05). The lines indicate the model predictions for different values of root-to-leaf xylem conductivity (Krl, mmol m−2 s−1 MPa−1) from equation 2 (A) and equation 4 (B).