4.8 Article

More Productive Than Maize in the Midwest: How Does Miscanthus Do It?

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 150, 期 4, 页码 2104-2115

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1104/pp.109.139162

关键词

-

资金

  1. Illinois Council on Food and Agriculture Research (C-FAR)
  2. Dudley Smith Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the first side-by-side large-scale trials of these two C 4 crops in the U. S. Corn Belt, Miscanthus (Miscanthus X giganteus) was 59% more productive than grain maize (Zea mays). Total productivity is the product of the total solar radiation incident per unit land area and the efficiencies of light interception (epsilon(i)) and its conversion into aboveground biomass (epsilon(ca)). Averaged over two growing seasons, epsilon(ca) did not differ, but epsilon(i) was 61% higher for Miscanthus, which developed a leaf canopy earlier and maintained it later. The diurnal course of photosynthesis was measured on sunlit and shaded leaves of each species on 26 dates. The daily integral of leaf-level photosynthetic CO2 uptake differed slightly when integrated across two growing seasons but was up to 60% higher in maize in mid-summer. The average leaf area of Miscanthus was double that of maize, with the result that calculated canopy photosynthesis was 44% higher in Miscanthus, corresponding closely to the biomass differences. To determine the basis of differences in mid-season leaf photosynthesis, light and CO2 responses were analyzed to determine in vivo biochemical limitations. Maize had a higher maximum velocity of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylation, velocity of phosphoenolpyruvate regeneration, light saturated rate of photosynthesis, and higher maximum quantum efficiency of CO2 assimilation. These biochemical differences, however, were more than offset by the larger leaf area and its longer duration in Miscanthus. The results indicate that the full potential of C-4 photosynthetic productivity is not achieved by modern temperate maize cultivars.

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

4.8
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