4.7 Article

Responses to water stress of gas exchange and metabolites in Eucalyptus and Acacia spp.

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 34, 期 10, 页码 1609-1629

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02357.x

关键词

C-c; drought; GC-MS; metabolite profile; osmotic adjustment; tuneable diode laser

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Regional Government of Madrid [SUM2008-00004-C03-01]
  3. Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of water stress commonly examine either gas exchange or leaf metabolites, and many fail to quantify the concentration of CO2 in the chloroplasts (C-c). We redress these limitations by quantifying C-c from discrimination against (CO2)-C-13 and using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for leaf metabolite profiling. Five Eucalyptus and two Acacia species from semi-arid to mesic habitats were subjected to a 2 month water stress treatment (Psi(pre-dawn) = -1.7 to -2.3 MPa). Carbohydrates dominated the leaf metabolite profiles of species from dry areas, whereas organic acids dominated the metabolite profiles of species from wet areas. Water stress caused large decreases in photosynthesis and C-c, increases in 17-33 metabolites and decreases in 0-9 metabolites. In most species, fructose, glucose and sucrose made major contributions to osmotic adjustment. In Acacia, significant osmotic adjustment was also caused by increases in pinitol, pipecolic acid and trans-4-hydroxypipecolic acid. There were also increases in low-abundance metabolites (e.g. proline and erythritol), and metabolites that are indicative of stress-induced changes in metabolism [e.g. gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) shunt, photorespiration, phenylpropanoid pathway]. The response of gas exchange to water stress and rewatering is rather consistent among species originating from mesic to semi-arid habitats, and the general response of metabolites to water stress is rather similar, although the specific metabolites involved may vary.

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