4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

C4 photosynthetic isotope exchange in NAD-ME- and NADP-ME-type grasses

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 59, 期 7, 页码 1695-1703

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern001

关键词

C(4) grasses; carbonic anhydrase; isotope discrimination; leakiness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monitoring photosynthetic isotope exchange is an important tool for predicting the influence of plant communities on the global carbon cycle in response to climate change. C(4) grasses play an important role in the global carbon cycle, but their contribution to the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO(2) is not well understood. Instantaneous measurements of (13)CO(2) (Delta(13)C) and C(18)OO (Delta(18)O) isotope exchange in five NAD-ME and seven NADP-ME C(4) grasses have been conducted to investigate the difference in photosynthetic CO(2) isotopic fractionation in these subgroups. As previously reported, the isotope composition of the leaf material (delta(13)C) was depleted in (13)C in the NAD-ME compared with the NADP-ME grasses. However, Delta(13)C was not different between subtypes at high light, and, although Delta(13)C increased at low light, it did so similarly in both subtypes. This suggests that differences in leaf delta(13)C between the C(4) subtypes are not caused by photosynthetic isotope fractionation and leaf delta(13)C is not a good indicator of bundle sheath leakiness. Additionally, low carbonic anhydrase (CA) in C(4) grasses may influences Delta(13)C and should be considered when estimating the contribution of C(4) grasses to the global isotopic signature of atmospheric CO(2). It was found that measured Delta(18)O values were lower than those predicted from leaf CA activities and Delta(18)O was similar in all species measured. The Delta(18)O in these C(4) grasses is similar to low Delta(18)O previously measured in C(4) dicots which contain 2.5 times the leaf CA activity, suggesting that leaf CA activity is not a predictor of Delta(18)O in C(4) plants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据