4.8 Article

The relationship between anatomy and photosynthetic performance of heterobaric leaves

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 129, 期 1, 页码 235-243

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.010943

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterobaric leaves show heterogeneous pigmentation due to the occurrence of a network of transparent areas that are created from the bundle sheaths extensions (BSEs). Image analysis showed that the percentage of photosynthetically active leaf area (A(p)) of the heterobaric leaves of 31 plant species was species dependent, ranging from 91% in Malva sylvestris to only 48% in Gynerium sp. Although a significant portion of the leaf surface does not correspond to photosynthetic tissue, the photosynthetic capacity of these leaves, expressed per unit of projected area (P-max), was not considerably affected by the size of their transparent leaf area (A(t)). This means that the photosynthetic capacity expressed per A(p) (P-max*) should increase with A(t). Moreover, the expression of P-max* could be allowing the interpretation of the photosynthetic performance in relation to some critical anatomical traits. The P-max* irrespective of plant species, correlated with the specific leaf transparent volume (lambda(t)), as well as with the transparent leaf area complexity factor ((CF)A(t)), parameters indicating the volume per unit leaf area and length/density of the transparent tissues, respectively. Moreover, both parameters increased exponentially with leaf thickness, suggesting an essential functional role of BSEs mainly in thick leaves. The results of the present study suggest that although the A(p) of an heterobaric leaf is reduced, the photosynthetic performance of each areole is increased, possibly due to the light transferring capacity of BSEs, This mechanism may allow a significant increase in leaf thickness and a consequent increase of the photosynthetic capacity per unit (projected) area, offering adaptive advantages in xerothermic environments.

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

4.8
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