4.7 Article

Differential adaptation of two varieties of common bean to abiotic stress - II. Acclimation of photosynthesis

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 699-709

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erj061

Keywords

abiotic stress; acclimation; common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris); drought; photosynthesis; stomata

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The photosynthetic characteristics of two contrasting varieties of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) have been determined. These varieties, Arroz and Orfeo, differ in their productivity under stress conditions, resistance to drought stress, and have distinctly different stomatal behaviour. When grown under conditions of high irradiance and high temperature, both varieties displayed evidence of photosynthetic acclimation at the chloroplast level-there was an increase in chlorophyll a/b ratio, a decreased content of Lhcb proteins, and an increased xanthophyll cycle pool size. Both varieties also showed reduced chlorophyll content on a leaf area basis and a decrease in leaf area. Both varieties showed an increase in leaf thickness but only Arroz showed the characteristic elongated palisade cells in the high light-grown plants; Orfeo instead had a larger number of smaller, rounded cells. Differences were found in stomatal development: whereas Arroz showed very little change in stomatal density, Orfeo exhibited a large increase, particularly on the upper leaf surface. It is suggested that these differences in leaf cell structure and stomatal density give rise to altered rates of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance. Whereas, Arroz had the same photosynthetic rate in plants grown at both low and high irradiance, Orfeo showed a higher photosynthetic capacity at high irradiance. It is suggested that the higher yield of Orfeo compared with Arroz under stress conditions can be explained, in part, by these cellular 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available