4.6 Review

Environmental and physiological determinants of carbon isotope discrimination in terrestrial plants

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 200, 期 4, 页码 950-965

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.12423

关键词

bundle-sheath leakiness; carbon isotope discrimination; crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM); intercellular carbon dioxide concentration; mesophyll conductance; photosynthetic pathway; water-use efficiency

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [FT100100329, DP1097276]
  2. Australian Research Council [FT100100329, DP1097276] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stable carbon isotope ratios (delta C-13) of terrestrial plants are employed across a diverse range of applications in environmental and plant sciences; however, the kind of information that is desired from the delta C-13 signal often differs. At the extremes, it ranges between purely environmental and purely biological. Here, we review environmental drivers of variation in carbon isotope discrimination (Delta) in terrestrial plants, and the biological processes that can either damp or amplify the response. For C-3 plants, where Delta is primarily controlled by the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO2 concentrations (c(i)/c(a)), coordination between stomatal conductance and photosynthesis and leaf area adjustment tends to constrain the potential environmentally driven range of Delta. For C-4 plants, variation in bundle-sheath leakiness to CO2 can either damp or amplify the effects of c(i)/c(a) on Delta. For plants with crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM), Delta varies over a relatively large range as a function of the proportion of daytime to night-time CO2 fixation. This range can be substantially broadened by environmental effects on Delta when carbon uptake takes place primarily during the day. The effective use of Delta across its full range of applications will require a holistic view of the interplay between environmental control and physiological modulation of the environmental signal.

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