4.6 Article

Historical changes in the stomatal limitation of photosynthesis: empirical support for an optimality principle

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 225, 期 6, 页码 2484-2497

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.16314

关键词

leaf-internal CO2 concentration; least-cost hypothesis; optimality; stable carbon isotopes; tree rings; water-use efficiency

资金

  1. Postdoctoral Newton International Fellowship - Royal Society (UK) [NF170082]
  2. Fundacio La Caixa through the Junior Leader Program [LCF/BQ/LR18/11640004]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme [787203 REALM]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ratio of leaf internal (c(i)) to ambient (c(a)) partial pressure of CO2, defined here as chi, is an index of adjustments in both leaf stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate to environmental conditions. Measurements and proxies of this ratio can be used to constrain vegetation model uncertainties for predicting terrestrial carbon uptake and water use. We test a theory based on the least-cost optimality hypothesis for modelling historical changes in chi over the 1951-2014 period, across different tree species and environmental conditions, as reconstructed from stable carbon isotopic measurements across a global network of 103 absolutely dated tree-ring chronologies. The theory predicts optimal chi as a function of air temperature, vapour pressure deficit, c(a) and atmospheric pressure. The theoretical model predicts 39% of the variance in chi values across sites and years, but underestimates the intersite variability in the reconstructed chi trends, resulting in only 8% of the variance in chi trends across years explained by the model. Overall, our results support theoretical predictions that variations in chi are tightly regulated by the four environmental drivers. They also suggest that explicitly accounting for the effects of plant-available soil water and other site-specific characteristics might improve the predictions.

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

4.6
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