4.6 Article

Ecophysiological traits in C3 and C4 grasses: a phylogenetically controlled screening experiment

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 185, 期 3, 页码 780-791

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03102.x

关键词

C-3 photosynthesis; C-4 photosynthesis; gas exchange; grasses; growth analysis; leaf nitrogen; stomatal conductance; water-use efficiency

资金

  1. NERC [NE/DO13062/1]
  2. Royal Society University
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/D013062/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/D013062/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental evidence demonstrates a higher efficiency of water and nitrogen use in C-4 compared with C-3 plants, which is hypothesized to drive differences in biomass allocation between C-3 and C-4 species. However, recent work shows that contrasts between C-3 and C-4 grasses may be misinterpreted without phylogenetic control. Here, we compared leaf physiology and growth in multiple lineages of C-3 and C-4 grasses sampled from a monophyletic clade, and asked the following question: which ecophysiological traits differ consistently between photosynthetic types, and which vary among lineages? C-4 species had lower stomatal conductance and water potential deficits, and higher water-use efficiency than C-3 species. Photosynthesis and nitrogen-use efficiency were also greater in C-4 species, varying markedly between clades. Contrary to previous studies, leaf nitrogen concentration was similar in C-4 and C-3 types. Canopy mass and area were greater, and root mass smaller, in the tribe Paniceae than in most other lineages. The size of this phylogenetic effect on biomass partitioning was greater in the C-4 NADP-me species than in species of other types. Our results show that the phylogenetic diversity underlying C-4 photosynthesis is critical to understanding its functional consequences. Phylogenetic bias is therefore a crucial factor to be considered when comparing the ecophysiology of C-3 and C-4 species.

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

4.6
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