4.7 Article

Leaf hydraulic conductance varies with vein anatomy across Arabidopsis thaliana wild-type and leaf vein mutants

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 2735-2746

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.12584

关键词

bundle sheath; leaf anatomy; leaf hydraulics; vein density; VLA

资金

  1. NSF [IOS-1147292]
  2. NSF GRFP [DGE-1144087]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1147292] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1302314] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1147292] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leaf venation is diverse across plant species and has practical applications from paleobotany to modern agriculture. However, the impact of vein traits on plant performance has not yet been tested in a model system such as Arabidopsis thaliana. Previous studies analysed cotyledons of A.thaliana vein mutants and identified visible differences in their vein systems from the wild type (WT). We measured leaf hydraulic conductance (K-leaf), vein traits, and xylem and mesophyll anatomy for A.thalianaWT (Col-0) and four vein mutants (dot3-111 and dot3-134, and cvp1-3 and cvp2-1). Mutant true leaves did not possess the qualitative venation anomalies previously shown in the cotyledons, but varied quantitatively in vein traits and leaf anatomy across genotypes. The WT had significantly higher mean K-leaf. Across all genotypes, there was a strong correlation of K-leaf with traits related to hydraulic conductance across the bundle sheath, as influenced by the number and radial diameter of bundle sheath cells and vein length per area. These findings support the hypothesis that vein traits influence K-leaf, indicating the usefulness of this mutant system for testing theory that was primarily established comparatively across species, and supports a strong role for the bundle sheath in influencing K-leaf.

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