4.7 Article

A controlled test of the dual-isotope approach for the interpretation of stable carbon and oxygen isotope ratio variation in tree rings

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 490-503

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tps019

关键词

cellulose; conceptual models; delta O-18; delta C-13; eucalypt; pine; wood

类别

资金

  1. Southern Oregon University
  2. Australian Research Council [DP1097276, DP110105376]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP1097276] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seedlings of a conifer (Pinus radiata D. Don) and a broad leaf angiosperm (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.) were grown for 100 days in two growth cabinets at 45 or 65% relative humidity. The seedlings were exposed to treatments designed to modify carbon assimilation rates and capacities, stomatal conductance and transpiration to test conceptual models that attempt to clarify the interpretation of carbon isotope discrimination (delta C-13) by using oxygen isotope enrichment (delta O-18). Differences in relative humidity and within-cabinet treatments (including lower irradiance, lower nitrogen inputs, higher leaf temperature and lower moisture status than control seedlings) produced significant differences in assimilation rates, photosynthetic capacities, stomatal conductance, leaf transpiration rates and leaf evaporative enrichment. The dual-isotope approach accurately interpreted the cause of variation in wood cellulose delta C-13 for some of the treatments, but not for others. We also tested whether we could use delta C-13 variation to constrain the interpretation of delta O-18 variation. Carbon isotope discrimination appears to be influenced by transpiration (providing information on leaf evaporative enrichment), but the results did not provide a clear way to interpret such variation. The dual-isotope approach appears to be valid conceptually, but more work is needed to make it operational under different scenarios.

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