4.7 Article

Photosynthesis, photorespiration and productivity of wheat and soybean genotypes

Journal

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
Volume 145, Issue 3, Pages 369-383

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2012.01613.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The results of the numerous measurements obtained during the last 40 years on gas exchange rate, photosynthetic carbon metabolism by exposition in 14CO2 and activities of primary carbon fixation enzyme, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBPC/O), in various wheat and soybean genotypes grown over a wide area in the field and contrasting in photosynthetic traits and productivity are presented in this article. It was established that high productive wheat genotypes (79 t ha-1) with the optimal architectonics possess higher rate of CO2 assimilation during the leaf ontogenesis. Along with the high rate of photosynthesis, high values of photorespiration are characteristic for the high productive genotypes. Genotypes with moderate (45 t ha-1) and low (3 t ha-1) grain yield are characterized by relatively low rates of both CO2 assimilation and photorespiration. A value of photorespiration constitutes 2835% of photosynthetic rate in contrasting genotypes. The activities of RuBPC and RuBPO were changing in a similar way in the course of the flag leaf and ear elements development. High productive genotypes are also characterized by a higher rate of biosynthesis and total value of glycineserine and a higher photosynthetic rate. Therefore, contrary to conception arisen during many years on the wastefulness of photorespiration, taking into account the versatile investigations on different aspects of photorespiration, it was proved that photorespiration is one of the evolutionarily developed vital metabolic processes in plants and the attempts to reduce this process with the purpose of increasing the crop productivity are inconsistent.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available