4.5 Review

Viewpoint: Why are non-photosynthetic tissues generally C-13 enriched compared with leaves in C-3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses

Journal

FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 199-213

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/FP08216

Keywords

diel cycle; heterotrophic tissue; PEP-carboxylase; refixation; respiration

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Non-photosynthetic, or heterotrophic, tissues in C-3 plants tend to be enriched in C-13 compared with the leaves that supply them with photosynthate. This isotopic pattern has been observed for woody stems, roots, seeds and fruits, emerging leaves, and parasitic plants incapable of net CO2 fixation. Unlike in C-3 plants, roots of herbaceous C-4 plants are generally not C-13-enriched compared with leaves. We review six hypotheses aimed at explaining this isotopic pattern in C-3 plants: (1) variation in biochemical composition of heterotrophic tissues compared with leaves; (2) seasonal separation of growth of leaves and heterotrophic tissues, with corresponding variation in photosynthetic discrimination against C-13; (3) differential use of day v. night sucrose between leaves and sink tissues, with day sucrose being relatively C-13-depleted and night sucrose C-13-enriched; (4) isotopic fractionation during dark respiration; (5) carbon fixation by PEP carboxylase; and (6) developmental variation in photosynthetic discrimination against C-13 during leaf expansion. Although hypotheses (1) and ( 2) may contribute to the general pattern, they cannot explain all observations. Some evidence exists in support of hypotheses (3) through to (6), although for hypothesis (6) it is largely circumstantial. Hypothesis (3) provides a promising avenue for future research. Direct tests of these hypotheses should be carried out to provide insight into the mechanisms causing within-plant variation in carbon isotope composition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available