Effect of elevated carbon dioxide concentration on carbon assimilation under fluctuating light

Journal of Environmental Quality

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1931-1938

  Holišová, Petra ^a,b   Zitová, Martina ^a   Klem, Karel ^a   Urban, Otmar ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS   (Czech Republic)

^b MENDEL UNIVERSITY IN BRNO   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC CO; CARBON ASSIMILATION; CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS; CLOUD COVER; ELEVATED CO; EUROPEAN BEECH; FLUCTUATING LIGHT; FOREST CANOPIES; INDUCTION LOSS; INTERACTIVE EFFECT; LIGHT CONDITIONS; LIGHT ENVIRONMENT; LIGHT INTENSITY; LIGHT REGIME; LOW LIGHT; NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS; NORWAY SPRUCE; PHOTOSYNTHETIC EFFICIENCY; PICEA ABIES; SELF-SHADING; SUN LEAVES; TIME COURSE;

FORESTRY; INCIDENT SOLAR RADIATION; LIGHT; PLANTS (BOTANY);

CARBON DIOXIDE;

CARBON DIOXIDE;

ARTICLE; BEECH; CANOPY; CARBON FIXATION; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ILLUMINATION; LIGHT; NONHUMAN; NORWAY SPRUCE; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; RADIATION;

CARBON; CARBON DIOXIDE; FAGUS; LIGHT; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; PICEA; SOIL; TIME;

CARBON DIOXIDE; FORESTRY; LIGHT; PLANTS; SUN LIGHT;

FAGUS; FAGUS SYLVATICA; PICEA; PICEA ABIES;

EID: 84869470617     PISSN: 00472425     EISSN: 15372537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2012.0113     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. 2]: Mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30:258-270. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x
2. Allen, M.T., and R.W. Pearcy. 2000. Stomatal behavior and photosynthetic performance under dynamic light regimes in a seasonally dry tropical rain forest. Oecologia 122:470-478. doi:10.1007/s004420050968
3. Bernacchi, C.J., C. Pimentel, and S.P. Long. 2003. In vivo temperature response functions of parameters required to model RuBPlimited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 26:1419-1430.doi:10.1046/j.0016-8025.2003.01050.x
4. 2 concentration. Tree Physiol. 27:1153-1163. doi:10.1093/treephys/27.8.1153
5. Cao, K.F., and E.W. Booth. 2001. Leaf anatomical structure and photosynthetic induction for seedlings of five dipterocarp species under contrasting light conditions in a Bornean heath forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 17:163-175.doi:10.1017/S0266467401001110
6. 2 on woody plants. New Phytol. 127:425-446. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb03961.x
7. Chazdon, R.L., and R.W. Pearcy. 1986. Photosynthetic responses to light variation in rainforest species: II. Carbon gain and photosynthetic efficiency during lightflecks. Oecologia 69:524-531. doi:10.1007/BF00410358
8. Chen, J.W., Q. Zhang, X.S. Li, and K.F. Cao. 2011. Steady and dynamic photosynthetic responses of seedlings from contrasting successional groups under low-light growth conditions. Physiol. Plant. 141:84-95.doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.2010.01414.x
9. 2 concentration (FACE) in aging needles in a mature Pinus taeda forest. Tree Physiol. 24:961-970. doi:10.1093/treephys/24.9.961
10. 2 concentration on Rubisco deactivation during low PFD or darkness. Photosynth. Res. 61:65-75.doi:10.1023/A:1006289901858
11. 2 assimilation in leaves of C-3 species. Planta 149:78-90. doi:10.1007/BF00386231
12. 2. Plant Cell Environ.15:271-282. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.1992.tb00974.x
13. Kirschbaum, M.U.F., and R.W. Pearcy. 1988. Gas exchange analysis of the fast phase of photosynthetic induction in Alocasia macrorrhiza. Plant Physiol.87:818-821. doi:10.1104/pp.87.4.818
14. 2 concentrations. Plant Sci. 177:123-130. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.04.005
15. Küppers, M., and H. Schneider. 1993. Leaf gas exchange of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings in lightflecks: Effects of fleck length and leaf temperature in leaves grown in deep and partial shade. Trees (Berl.) 7:160-168.doi:10.1007/BF00199617
16. Küppers, M., H. Timm, F. Orth, J. Stegemann, R. Stöber, H. Schneider, K. Paliwal, K.S.T.K. Karunaichamy, and R. Ortiz. 1996. Effect of light environment and successional status on lightfleck use by understory trees of temperate and tropical forests. Tree Physiol. 16:69-80. doi:10.1093/treephys/16.1-2.69
17. Lambers, H., F.S. Chapin, and T.L. Pons. 2008. Plant physiological ecology. 2nd ed. Springer, New York.
18. 2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: Six important lessons from FACE. J. Exp. Bot. 60:2859-2876.doi:10.1093/jxb/erp096
19. 2 is greater under sunflecks than uniform irradiance in a tropical rain forest tree seedling. Plant Cell Environ. 25:1701-1714. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2002.00944.x
20. Leakey, A.D.B., J.D. Scholes, and M.C. Press. 2005. Physiological and ecological significance of sunflecks for dipterocarp seedlings. J. Exp. Bot. 56:469-482. doi:10.1093/jxb/eri055
21. 2 concentration. Photosynthetica 40:259-267.doi:10.1023/A:1021306010135
22. 2 amplified when water is limiting, but reduced when nitrogen is limiting? A growthoptimisation hypothesis. Funct. Plant Biol. 35:521-534. doi:10.1071/FP08128
23. 2 in FACE. Oecologia 122:163-174. doi:10.1007/PL00008844
24. Naumburg, E., D.S. Ellsworth, and G.G. Katul. 2001. Modeling dynamic understory photosynthesis of contrasting species in ambient and elevated carbon dioxide. Oecologia 126:487-499. doi:10.1007/s004420000543
25. 2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18052-18056. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509478102
26. 2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42:181-203. doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144647
27. Ono, K., and A. Watanabe. 1997. Levels of endogenous sugars, transcripts of rbcS and rbcL, and of RuBisCO protein in senescing sunflower leaves. Plant Cell Physiol. 38:1032-1038. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a029268
28. Ögren, E., and U. Sundin. 1996. Photosynthetic responses to variable light: A comparison of species from contrasting habitats. Oecologia 106:18-27.
29. Parry, M.A.J., A.J. Keys, P.J. Madgwick, A.E. Carmo-Silva, and P.J. Andralojc.2008. Rubisco regulation: A role for inhibitors. J. Exp. Bot. 59:1569-1580. doi:10.1093/jxb/ern084
30. Pearcy, R.W. 2007. Responses of plants to heterogeneous light environments. In:F.I. Pugnaire and F. Valladares, editors, Functional plant ecology. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 213-257.
31. 2 fixation: A critical analysis of the methods used. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 41:789-800.
32. 2-gas exchange and electron transport: Comparison of dynamic and steady-state responses in Fagus sylvatica leaves. Trees (Berl.) 17:153-163.
33. 2 assimilation. Plant Sci. 168:1371-1381. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2005.02.002
34. Teslová, P., J. Kalina, and O. Urban. 2010. Simultaneous determination of nonstructural saccharides and starch in leaves of higher plants using anthrone reagent. Chem. Listy 104:867-870.
35. Tinoco-Ojanguren, C., and R.W. Pearcy. 1992. Dynamic stomatal behavior and its role in carbon gain during lightflecks of a gap phase and an understory Piper species acclimated to high and low light. Oecologia 92:222-228.doi:10.1007/BF00317368
36. 2 differentially affects photosynthetic induction response in two Populus species with different stomatal behavior. Oecologia 169:869-878. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2256-5
37. Úradnícek, L., P. Madera, S. Tichá, and J. Koblížek. 2010. Woody plants of the Czech Republic. Lesnická práce, s.r.o., Kostelec nad Cernými Lesy.
38. 2 concentration ranging from molecular to whole plant responses. Photosynthetica 41:9-20.doi:10.1023/A:1025891825050
39. 2 concentration. Photosynthetica 39:395-401.doi:10.1023/A:1015134427592
40. Urban, O., M. Košvancová, M.V. Marek, and H.K. Lichtenthaler. 2007.Induction of photosynthesis and importance of limitations during the induction phase in sun and shade leaves of five ecologically contrasting tree species from the temperate zone. Tree Physiol. 27:1207-1215.doi:10.1093/treephys/27.8.1207
41. Valladares, F., M.T. Allen, and R.W. Pearcy. 1997. Photosynthetic responses to dynamic light under field conditions in six tropical rainforest shrubs occurring along a light gradient. Oecologia 111:505-514. doi:10.1007/s004420050264
42. Woodrow, I.E., M.E. Kelly, and K.A. Mott. 1996. Limitation of the rate of ribulosebisphosphate carboxylase activation by carbamylation and ribulosebisphosphate carboxylase activase activity: Development and tests of a mechanistic model. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 23:141-149. doi:10.1071/PP9960141