4.7 Article

Stomatal acclimation over a subambient to elevated CO2 gradient in a C3/C4 grassland

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 557-566

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2002.00832.x

关键词

grassland ecosystems; stomata; stomatal limitation of photosynthesis; subambient CO2; water use efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An investigation to determine whether stomatal acclimation to [CO2] occurred in C-3/C-4 grassland plants grown across a range of [CO2] (200-550 mumol mol(-1)) in the field was carried out. Acclimation was assessed by measuring the response of stomatal conductance (g(s)) to a range of intercellular CO2 (a g(s) C-i curve) at each growth [CO2] in the third and fourth growing seasons of the treatment. The gs C-i response curves for Solanum dimidiatum (C-3 perennial forb) differed significantly across [CO2] treatments, suggesting that stomatal acclimation had occurred. Evidence of non-linear stomatal acclimation to [CO2] in this species was also found as maximum g(s) (g(smax); g(s) measured at the lowest C-i) increased with decreasing growth [CO2] only below 400 mumol mol(-1). The substantial increase in g(s) at subambient [CO2] for S dimidiatum was weakly correlated with the maximum velocity of carboxylation (V-emax; r(2) = 0.27) and was not associated with CO2 saturated photosynthesis (A(max)). The response of g(s) to C-i did not vary with growth [CO2] in Bromus japonicus (C-3 annual grass) or Bothriochloa ischaemum (C-4 perennial grass), suggesting that stomatal acclimation had not occurred in these species. Stomatal density, which increased with rising [CO2] in both C-3 species, was not correlated with g,. Larger stomatal size at subambient [CO2], however, may be associated with stomatal acclimation in S. dimidiatum. Incorporating stomatal acclimation into modelling studies could improve the ability to predict changes in ecosystem water fluxes and water availability with rising CO2 and to understand their magnitudes relative to the past.

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