4.3 Article

Photosynthetic enzymes and carbohydrate metabolism of apple leaves in response to nitrogen limitation

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14620316.2004.11511867

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One-year-old apple (Males domestica Borkh. cv. Gala) trees were supplied twice weekly for 5 weeks with 500 ml of a modified Hoagland's solution at a nitrogen (N) concentration of 0, 5, 10, or 15 mM. Both CO2 assimilation and stomatal conductance decreased with decreasing leaf N. However, the calculated intercellular CO2 concentration increased as leaf N decreased. The chlorophyll a/b ratio remained unchanged as N supply decreased, except for a slight drop at 0 mM N. On a leaf area basis, the activities of key enzymes in the Calvin cycle [ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), NADP-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), phosphoribulokinase (PRK), stromal fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (FBPase)] and those in end-product synthesis [cytosolic FBPase, aldose-6-phosphate reductase (A6PR), sucrose phosphate synthase (SPS), and ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (AGPase)] decreased linearly with decreasing leaf N. Contents of glucose-6-phosphate (G6P) and fructose-6-phosphate (F6P) increased slightly as leaf N decreased from 2.39 g m(-2) to 1.31 g m(-2), then decreased in the lowest N leaves. The ratio of G6P/F6P remained unchanged over the leaf N range examined. The content of 3-phosphoglycerate (PGA) decreased linearly with decreasing leaf N. Starch content increased with decreasing leaf N both at dusk and pre-dawn. However, the contents of sorbitol, glucose, fructose, and sucrose decreased or remained unchanged as leaf N decreased. In conclusion, N limitation leads to accumulation of starch, but not soluble carbohydrates in apple leaves. Our data are consistent with the notion that N limitation restricts CO2 assimilation by directly limiting the activities of Rubisco and other enzymes, not by indirect feedback repression via sugar accumulation.

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

4.3
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