4.7 Article

Artefactual responses of mesophyll conductance to CO2 and irradiance estimated with the variable J and online isotope discrimination methods

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 1231-1249

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.12232

关键词

chlorophyll fluorescence; mesophyll diffusion; photosynthesis; carbon isotope discrimination

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Climate and Environmental Sciences Division
  2. ORNL's Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program
  3. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-00OR22725]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies with the variable J method have reported that mesophyll conductance (g(m)) rapidly decreases with increasing intercellular CO2 partial pressures (C-i) or decreasing irradiance. Similar responses have been suggested with the online isotope discrimination method, although with less consistency. Here we show that even when the true g(m) is constant, the variable J method can produce an artefactual dependence of g(m) on C-i or irradiance similar to those reported in previous studies for any of the following factors: day respiration and chloroplastic CO2 photocompensation point are estimated with Laisk method; C-i or electron transport rate is positively biased; net photosynthetic rate is negatively biased; insufficient NADPH is assumed while insufficient ATP limits RuBP regeneration. The isotopic method produces similar artefacts if fractionation of carboxylation or C-i is positively biased or Delta(13) negatively biased. A non-zero chloroplastic resistance to CO2 movement results in a qualitatively different dependence of g(m) on C-i or irradiance and this dependence is only sensitive at low C-i. We thus cannot rule out the possibility that previously reported dependence of g(m) on C-i or irradiance is a methodological artefact. Recommendations are made to take advantage of sensitivities of the variable J and isotopic methods for estimating g(m).

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