4.6 Article

Major Evolutionary Trends in Hydrogen Isotope Fractionation of Vascular Plant Leaf Waxes

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112610

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF [0816739, 0902805, 1024144]
  2. Brown University
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1024144, 0902805] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [0816739] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hydrogen isotopic ratios of terrestrial plant leaf waxes (delta D) have been widely used for paleoclimate reconstructions. However, underlying controls for the observed large variations in leaf wax delta D values in different terrestrial vascular plants are still poorly understood, hampering quantitative paleoclimate interpretation. Here we report plant leaf wax and source water delta D values from 102 plant species grown in a common environment (New York Botanic Garden), chosen to represent all the major lineages of terrestrial vascular plants and multiple origins of common plant growth forms. We found that leaf wax hydrogen isotope fractionation relative to plant source water is best explained by membership in particular lineages, rather than by growth forms as previously suggested. Monocots, and in particular one clade of grasses, display consistently greater hydrogen isotopic fractionation than all other vascular plants, whereas lycopods, representing the earlier-diverging vascular plant lineage, display the smallest fractionation. Data from greenhouse experiments and field samples suggest that the changing leaf wax hydrogen isotopic fractionation in different terrestrial vascular plants may be related to different strategies in allocating photosynthetic substrates for metabolic and biosynthetic functions, and potential leaf water isotopic differences.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available