4.7 Article

Carbon isotope discrimination during branch photosynthesis of Fagus sylvatica: a Bayesian modelling approach

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 1516-1535

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.12262

关键词

Farquhar model; gas exchange; isotopologues; laser spectrometer; open branch bags; photosynthetic C-13 discrimination

资金

  1. European Commission [MEXT-CT-2006-042268]
  2. SIBAE STSM [COST-STSM-ECOST-STSM-ES0806-280211-005035]
  3. INRA department EFPA in Cambridge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field measurements of photosynthetic carbon isotope discrimination ((13)Delta) of Fagus sylvatica, conducted with branch bags and laser spectrometry, revealed a high variability of (13)Delta, both on diurnal and day-to-day timescales. We tested the prediction capability of three versions of a commonly used model for (13)Delta [called here comprehensive ((13)Delta(comp)), simplified ((13)Delta(simple)) and revised ((13)Delta(revised)) versions]. A Bayesian approach was used to calibrate major model parameters. Constrained estimates were found for the fractionation during CO2 fixation in (13)Delta(comp), but not in (13)Delta(simple), and partially for the mesophyll conductance for CO2 (g(i)). No constrained estimates were found for fractionations during mitochondrial and photorespiration, and for a diurnally variable apparent fractionation between current assimilates and mitochondrial respiration, specific to (13)Delta(revised). A quantification of parameter estimation uncertainties and interdependencies further helped explore model structure and behaviour. We found that (13)Delta(comp) usually outperformed (13)Delta(simple) because of the explicit consideration of g(i) and the photorespiratory fractionation in (13)Delta(comp) that enabled a better description of the large observed diurnal variation (approximate to 9 parts per thousand) of (13)Delta. Flux-weighted daily means of (13)Delta were also better predicted with (13)Delta(comp) than with (13)Delta(simple).

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