4.7 Article

Artificially decreased vapour pressure deficit in field conditions modifies foliar metabolite profiles in birch and aspen

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 67, 期 14, 页码 4367-4378

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw219

关键词

Betula; GC-MS; metabolite profiling; mineral nutrients; Populus; relative humidity; VPD

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [250636]
  2. Estonian Research Council [IUT34-9, ETF9186, TK107-ENVIRON]
  3. Niemi-Foundation
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [250636, 250636] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relative air humidity (RH) is expected to increase in northern Europe due to climate change. Increasing RH reduces the difference of water vapour pressure deficit (VPD) between the leaf and the atmosphere, and affects the gas exchange of plants. Little is known about the effects of decreased VPD on plant metabolism, especially under field conditions. This study was conducted to determine the effects of artificially decreased VPD on silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.) and hybrid aspen (Populus tremula L.xP. tremuloides Michx.) foliar metabolite and nutrient profiles in a unique free air humidity manipulation (FAHM) field experiment during the fourth season of humidity manipulation, in 2011. Long-term exposure to decreased VPD modified nutrient homeostasis in tree leaves, as demonstrated by a lower N concentration and N: P ratio in aspen leaves, and higher Na concentration and lower K: Na ratio in the leaves of both species in decreased VPD than in ambient VPD. Decreased VPD caused a shift in foliar metabolite profiles of both species, affecting primary and secondary metabolites. Metabolic adjustment to decreased VPD included elevated levels of starch and heptulose sugars, sorbitol, hemiterpenoid and phenolic glycosides, and a-tocopherol. High levels of carbon reserves, phenolic compounds, and antioxidants under decreased VPD may modify plant resistance to environmental stresses emerging under changing climate.

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