Literature DB >> 31519787

Two-Source δ18O Method to Validate the CO18O-Photosynthetic Discrimination Model: Implications for Mesophyll Conductance.

Meisha Holloway-Phillips1, Lucas A Cernusak2, Hilary Stuart-Williams3, Nerea Ubierna3, Graham D Farquhar3.   

Abstract

Theoretical models of photosynthetic isotopic discrimination of CO2 (13C and 18O) are commonly used to estimate mesophyll conductance (g m). This requires making simplifying assumptions and assigning parameter values so that g m can be solved for as the residual term. Uncertainties in g m estimation occur due to measurement noise and assumptions not holding, including parameter uncertainty and model parametrization. Uncertainties in the 13C model have been explored previously, but there has been little testing undertaken to determine the reliability of g m estimates from the 18O model (g m18). In this study, we exploited the action of carbonic anhydrase in equilibrating CO2 with leaf water and manipulated the observed photosynthetic discrimination (Δ18O) by changing the oxygen isotopic composition of the source gas CO2 and water vapor. We developed a two-source δ18O method, whereby two measurements of Δ18O were obtained for a leaf with its gas-exchange characteristics otherwise unchanged. Measurements were performed in broad bean (Vicia faba) and Algerian oak (Quercus canariensis) in response to light and vapor pressure deficit. Despite manipulating the Δ18O by over 100‰, in most cases we observed consistency in the calculated g m18, providing confidence in the measurements and model theory. Where there were differences in g m18 estimates between source-gas measurements, we explored uncertainty associated with two model assumptions (the isotopic composition of water at the sites of CO2-water exchange, and the humidity of the leaf internal airspace) and found evidence for both. Finally, we provide experimental guidelines to minimize the sensitivity of g m18 estimates to measurement errors. The two-source δ18O method offers a flexible tool for model parameterization and provides an opportunity to refine our understanding of leaf water and CO2 fluxes.
© 2019 American Society of Plant Biologists. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31519787      PMCID: PMC6836848          DOI: 10.1104/pp.19.00633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plant Physiol        ISSN: 0032-0889            Impact factor:   8.340


  33 in total

Review 1.  Leaf water stable isotopes and water transport outside the xylem.

Authors:  M M Barbour; G D Farquhar; T N Buckley
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 7.228

2.  Steady-state models of photosynthesis.

Authors:  Susanne von Caemmerer
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 7.228

3.  Effect of Vapor Pressure Deficit on Gas Exchange in Wild-Type and Abscisic Acid-Insensitive Plants.

Authors:  Lucas A Cernusak; Gregory R Goldsmith; Matthias Arend; Rolf T W Siegwolf
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 8.340

Review 4.  Why small fluxes matter: the case and approaches for improving measurements of photosynthesis and (photo)respiration.

Authors:  David T Hanson; Samantha S Stutz; John S Boyer
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 6.992

5.  Ternary effects on the gas exchange of isotopologues of carbon dioxide.

Authors:  Graham D Farquhar; Lucas A Cernusak
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 7.228

6.  Leaf hydraulic conductance and mesophyll conductance are not closely related within a single species.

Authors:  Karen E Loucos; Kevin A Simonin; Margaret M Barbour
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 7.228

7.  Gas-Exchange Properties of Salt-Stressed Olive (Olea europea L.) Leaves.

Authors:  G Bongi; F Loreto
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 8.340

8.  Critical review: incorporating the arrangement of mitochondria and chloroplasts into models of photosynthesis and carbon isotope discrimination.

Authors:  Nerea Ubierna; Lucas A Cernusak; Meisha Holloway-Phillips; Florian A Busch; Asaph B Cousins; Graham D Farquhar
Journal:  Photosynth Res       Date:  2019-04-06       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Estimating Mesophyll Conductance from Measurements of C18OO Photosynthetic Discrimination and Carbonic Anhydrase Activity.

Authors:  Jérôme Ogée; Lisa Wingate; Bernard Genty
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 8.340

10.  Unsaturation of vapour pressure inside leaves of two conifer species.

Authors:  Lucas A Cernusak; Nerea Ubierna; Michael W Jenkins; Steven R Garrity; Thom Rahn; Heath H Powers; David T Hanson; Sanna Sevanto; Suan Chin Wong; Nate G McDowell; Graham D Farquhar
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  5 in total

1.  Effect of Vapor Pressure Deficit on Gas Exchange in Wild-Type and Abscisic Acid-Insensitive Plants.

Authors:  Lucas A Cernusak; Gregory R Goldsmith; Matthias Arend; Rolf T W Siegwolf
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 8.340

2.  Keep it Steamy: Improved Quantification of the Humidity within the Leaf.

Authors:  Magdalena M Julkowska
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 8.340

Review 3.  Extreme undersaturation in the intercellular airspace of leaves: a failure of Gaastra or Ohm?

Authors:  Fulton E Rockwell; N Michele Holbrook; Piyush Jain; Annika E Huber; Sabyasachi Sen; Abraham D Stroock
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 5.040

4.  Leaf scale quantification of the effect of photosynthetic gas exchange on Δ47 of CO2.

Authors:  Getachew Agmuas Adnew; Magdalena E G Hofmann; Thijs L Pons; Gerbrand Koren; Martin Ziegler; Lucas J Lourens; Thomas Röckmann
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Do 2 H and 18 O in leaf water reflect environmental drivers differently?

Authors:  Lucas A Cernusak; Adrià Barbeta; Rosemary T Bush; Rebekka Eichstaedt Bögelein; Juan Pedro Ferrio; Lawrence B Flanagan; Arthur Gessler; Paula Martín-Gómez; Regina T Hirl; Ansgar Kahmen; Claudia Keitel; Chun-Ta Lai; Niels C Munksgaard; Daniel B Nelson; Jérôme Ogée; John S Roden; Hans Schnyder; Steven L Voelker; Lixin Wang; Hilary Stuart-Williams; Lisa Wingate; Wusheng Yu; Liangju Zhao; Matthias Cuntz
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 10.323

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.