4.7 Article

Physiological and isotopic (δ13C and δ18O) responses of three tropical tree species to water and nutrient availability

Journal

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1441-1455

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02010.x

Keywords

carbon isotope ratio; leaf N concentration; oxygen isotope ratio; transpiration; tropical tree; water-use efficiency

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Water-use efficiency and stable isotope composition were studied in three tropical tree species. Seedlings of Tectona grandis, Swietenia macrophylla and Platymiscium pinnatum were grown at either high or low water supply, and with or without added fertilizer. These three species previously exhibited low, intermediate and high whole-plant water-use efficiency (TE) when grown at high water supply in unfertilized soil. Responses of TE to water and nutrient availability varied among species. The TE was calculated as experiment-long dry matter production divided by cumulative water use. Species-specific offsets were observed in relationships between TE and whole-plant C-13 discrimination (Delta C-13(p)). These offsets could be attributed to a breakdown in the relationship between Delta C-13(p) and the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO2 partial pressures (c(i)/c(a)) in P. pinnatum, and to variation among species in the leaf-to-air vapour pressure difference (v). Thus, a plot of v center dot TE against c(i)/c(a) showed a general relationship among species. Relationships between delta O-18 of stem dry matter and stomatal conductance ranged from strongly negative for S. macrophylla to no relationship for T. grandis. Results suggest inter-specific variation among tropical tree species in relationships between stable isotope ratios (delta C-13 and delta O-18) and the gas exchange processes thought to affect them.

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