4.7 Article

Extremely thick cell walls and low mesophyll conductance: welcome to the world of ancient living!

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 68, Issue 7, Pages 1639-1653

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erx045

Keywords

Conifer; g(m); gymnosperm; LES; LMA; nitrogen; photosynthesis

Categories

Funding

  1. Estonian Ministry of Science and Education [IUT-8-3, PUT1409, PUT1473]
  2. European Commission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesophyll conductance is thought to be an important photosynthetic limitation in gymnosperms, but they currently constitute the most understudied plant group in regard to the extent to which photosynthesis and intrinsic water use efficiency are limited by mesophyll conductance. A comprehensive analysis of leaf gas exchange, photosynthetic limitations, mesophyll conductance (calculated by three methods previously used for across-species comparisons), and the underlying ultra-anatomical, morphological and chemical traits in 11 gymnosperm species varying in evolutionary history was performed to gain insight into the evolution of structural and physiological controls on photosynthesis at the lower return end of the leaf economics spectrum. Two primitive herbaceous species were included in order to provide greater evolutionary context. Low mesophyll conductance was the main limiting factor of photosynthesis in the majority of species. The strongest sources of limitation were extremely thick mesophyll cell walls, high chloroplast thickness and variation in chloroplast shape and size, and the low exposed surface area of chloroplasts per unit leaf area. In gymnosperms, the negative relationship between net assimilation per mass and leaf mass per area reflected an increased mesophyll cell wall thickness, whereas the easy-to-measure integrative trait of leaf mass per area failed to predict the underlying ultrastructural traits limiting mesophyll conductance.

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