4.6 Article

Stomatal index responses of Agrostis canina to CO2 and sulphur dioxide: implications for palaeo-[CO2] using the stomatal proxy

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 188, 期 3, 页码 845-855

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03403.x

关键词

Agrostis canina; CO2; palaeo-[CO2]; stomatal index; sulphur dioxide (SO2)

资金

  1. UCD Seed Fund
  2. EU [MEXT-CT-2006-042531]
  3. SFI [08/RFP/EOB1131]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Stomatal index values of fossil plants are widely used in reconstructing palaeo-[CO2]. This depends upon the assumption that the stomatal index is determined by the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ([CO2]). This study investigates whether fumigation with, and resistance to, sulphur dioxide (SO2) induces a reduction in the stomatal index that may affect stomatal reconstructions of palaeo-[CO2] coinciding with episodes of global-scale volcanism. Agrostis canina from Mefite di Ansanto, Italy, grow in atmospheres of elevated-[CO2], SO2 and hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Mefite A. canina were compared with a control population in a 'common-garden' experiment and a controlled-environment study under elevated-[CO2] and SO2 fumigation. In A. canina, resistance to toxic volcanic gases is not associated with reduced stomatal index, and fumigation with SO2 does not cause a decrease in stomatal initiation. The two populations of A. canina analyzed in this study exhibit different stomatal index-[CO2] 'responses', with control plants showing a reduction in stomatal index and Mefite plants showing no response. Stomatal reconstructions of palaeo-[CO2] during past episodes of global-scale volcanism probably reflect atmospheric [CO2] and not [SO2]. The lack of a reduction in the stomatal index in response to elevated [CO2] in the Mefite plants, suggests that resistance to toxic gases and/or long-term growth at high [CO2] reduces, or negates, sensitivity of the stomatal index-[CO2] relationship, or that stomatal index-[CO2] in the Mefite plants is attuned to [CO2] fluctuations at much higher concentrations.

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