4.7 Article

Elevated [CO2] magnifies isoprene emissions under heat and improves thermal resistance in hybrid aspen

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 64, 期 18, 页码 5509-5523

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ert318

关键词

BVOCs; foliage traits; future emissions; heat stress; isoprene CO2 response; temperature response

资金

  1. Estonian Ministry of Science and Education [IUT-8-3]
  2. Estonian Science Foundation [9253]
  3. European Commission through the European Regional Fund (the Centre of Excellence in Environmental Adaptation)
  4. European Social Fund (Doctoral Studies and Internationalization Programme DoRa)
  5. European Research Council [322603]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isoprene emissions importantly protect plants from heat stress, but the emissions become inhibited by instantaneous increase of [CO2], and it is currently unclear how isoprene-emitting plants cope with future more frequent and severe heat episodes under high [CO2]. Hybrid aspen (Populus tremula x Populus tremuloides) saplings grown under ambient [CO2] of 380 mol mol(1) and elevated [CO2] of 780 mol mol(1) were used to test the hypothesis that acclimation to elevated [CO2] reduces the inhibitory effect of high [CO2] on emissions. Elevated-[CO2]-grown plants had greater isoprene emission capacity and a stronger increase of isoprene emissions with increasing temperature. High temperatures abolished the instantaneous [CO2] sensitivity of isoprene emission, possibly due to removing the substrate limitation resulting from curbed cycling of inorganic phosphate. As a result, isoprene emissions were highest in elevated-[CO2]-grown plants under high measurement [CO2]. Overall, elevated growth [CO2] improved heat resistance of photosynthesis, in particular, when assessed under high ambient [CO2] and the improved heat resistance was associated with greater cellular sugar and isoprene concentrations. Thus, contrary to expectations, these results suggest that isoprene emissions might increase in the future.

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