4.7 Article

High-resolution temperature responses of leaf respiration in snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) reveal high-temperature limits to respiratory function

Journal

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 36, Issue 7, Pages 1268-1284

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.12057

Keywords

acclimation; Arrhenius; heat stress; leaves; Q10; respiration

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [ARC FT0991448, DP0986823]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0986823] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We tested whether snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) trees growing in thermally contrasting environments exhibit generalizable temperature (T) response functions of leaf respiration (R) and fluorescence (Fo). Measurements were made on pot-grown saplings and field-grown trees (growing between 1380 and 2110m a.s.l.). Using a continuous, high-resolution protocol, we quantified T response curves of R and Fo - these data were used to identify an algorithm for modelling R-T curves at subcritical T's and establish variations in heat tolerance. For the latter, we quantified Tmax [T where R is maximal] and Tcrit [T where Fo rises rapidly]. Tmax ranged from 51 to 57 degrees C, varying with season (e.g. winter>summer). Tcrit ranged from 41 to 49 degrees C in summer and from 58 to 63 degrees C in winter. Thus, surprisingly, leaf energy metabolism was more heat-tolerant in trees experiencing ice-encasement in winter than warmer conditions in summer. A polynomial model fitted to log-transformed R data provided the best description of the T-sensitivity of R (between 10 and 45 degrees C); using these model fits, we found that the negative slope of the Q10-T relationship was greater in winter than in summer. Collectively, our results (1) highlight high-T limits of energy metabolism in E.pauciflora and (2) provide a framework for improving representation of T-responses of leaf R in predictive models.

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