4.7 Article

Contrasting acclimation abilities of two dominant boreal conifers to elevated CO2 and temperature

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 1331-1345

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.13158

关键词

boreal forest; chlorophyll fluorescence; photosynthesis; stomatal conductance; temperature-CO2 interactions; thermal acclimation

资金

  1. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation
  2. Canada Research Chairs programme
  3. UWO Faculty of Science
  4. NSERC Discovery Grant Programme
  5. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  6. Swedish Governments strategic initiative Trees and Crops for the Future
  7. Swedish Research Council
  8. Kempestiftelserna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High latitude forests will experience large changes in temperature and CO2 concentrations this century. We evaluated the effects of future climate conditions on 2 dominant boreal tree species, Pinus sylvestris L. and Picea abies (L.) H. Karst, exposing seedlings to 3 seasons of ambient (430 ppm) or elevated CO2 (750 ppm) and ambient temperatures, a + 4 degrees C warming or a + 8 degrees C warming. Pinus sylvestris responded positively to warming: seedlings developed a larger canopy, maintained high net CO2 assimilation rates (A(net)), and acclimated dark respiration (R-dark). In contrast, carbon fluxes in Picea abies were negatively impacted by warming: maximum rates of A(net) decreased, electron transport was redirected to alternative electron acceptors, and thermal acclimation of R-dark was weak. Elevated CO2 tended to exacerbate these effects in warm-grown Picea abies, and by the end of the experiment Picea abies from the +8 degrees C, high CO2 treatment produced fewer buds than they had 3 years earlier. Treatments had little effect on leaf and wood anatomy. Our results highlight that species within the same plant functional type may show opposite responses to warming and imply that Picea abies may be particularly vulnerable to warming due to low plasticity in photosynthetic and respiratory metabolism.

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