Variation in mesophyll conductance among Australian wheat genotypes

被引:48
|
作者
Jahan, Eisrat [1 ]
Amthor, Jeffrey S. [1 ]
Farquhar, Graham D. [2 ]
Trethowan, Richard [1 ]
Barbour, Margaret M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Fac Agr & Environm, Narellan, NSW 2567, Australia
[2] Australian Natl Univ, Res Sch Biol, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
day respiration; leaf internal conductance; mesophyll limitation; Triticum aestivum; CARBON-ISOTOPE DISCRIMINATION; INTERNAL CONDUCTANCE; CO2; DIFFUSION; GAS-EXCHANGE; LEAF PHOTOSYNTHESIS; TEMPERATURE RESPONSE; STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE; SPINACH LEAVES; GRAIN-YIELD; WATER-USE;
D O I
10.1071/FP13254
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
CO2 diffusion from substomatal intercellular cavities to sites of carboxylation in chloroplasts (mesophyll conductance; g(m)) limits photosynthetic rate and influences leaf intrinsic water-use efficiency (A/g(sw)). We investigated genotypic variability of g(m) and effects of g(m) on A/g(sw) among eleven wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes under light-saturated conditions and at either 2 or 21% O-2. Significant variation in g(m) and A/g(sw) was found between genotypes at both O-2 concentrations, but there was no significant effect of O-2 concentration on g(m). Further, g(m) was correlated with photosynthetic rate among the 11 genotypes, but was unrelated to stomatal conductance. The effect of leaf age differed between genotypes, with g(m) being lower in older leaves for one genotype but not another. This study demonstrates a high level of variation in g(m) between wheat genotypes; 0.5 to 1.0 mu mol m(-2) s(-1) bar(-1). Further, leaf age effects indicate that great care must be taken to choose suitable leaves in studies of genotypic variation in g(m) and water-use efficiency.
引用
收藏
页码:568 / 580
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The response of mesophyll conductance to nitrogen and water availability differs between wheat genotypes
    Barbour, Margaret M.
    Kaiser, Brent N.
    PLANT SCIENCE, 2016, 251 : 119 - 127
  • [2] Genetic control of mesophyll conductance in common wheat
    Barbour, Margaret M.
    Bachmann, Sarah
    Bansal, Urmil
    Bariana, Harbans
    Sharp, Peter
    NEW PHYTOLOGIST, 2016, 209 (02) : 461 - 465
  • [3] Stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, and transpiration efficiency in relation to leaf anatomy in rice and wheat genotypes under drought
    Ouyang, Wenjing
    Struik, Paul C.
    Yin, Xinyou
    Yang, Jianchang
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY, 2017, 68 (18) : 5191 - 5205
  • [4] Mesophyll conductance: walls, membranes and spatial complexity
    Evans, John R.
    NEW PHYTOLOGIST, 2021, 229 (04) : 1864 - 1876
  • [5] The response of mesophyll conductance to short- and long-term environmental conditions in chickpea genotypes
    Shrestha, Arjina
    Buckley, Thomas N.
    Lockhart, Erin L.
    Barbour, Margaret M.
    AOB PLANTS, 2019, 11 (01):
  • [6] Cellular perspectives for improving mesophyll conductance
    Lundgren, Marjorie R.
    Fleming, Andrew J.
    PLANT JOURNAL, 2020, 101 (04) : 845 - 857
  • [7] Interspecific variation in the temperature response of mesophyll conductance is related to leaf anatomy
    Huang, Guanjun
    Zhang, Qiangqiang
    Yang, Yuhan
    Shu, Yu
    Ren, Xifeng
    Peng, Shaobing
    Li, Yong
    PLANT JOURNAL, 2022, 112 (01) : 221 - 234
  • [8] The temperature response of mesophyll conductance, and its component conductances, varies between species and genotypes
    Shrestha, Arjina
    Song, Xin
    Barbour, Margaret M.
    PHOTOSYNTHESIS RESEARCH, 2019, 141 (01) : 65 - 82
  • [9] Genotypically Identifying Wheat Mesophyll Conductance Regulation under Progressive Drought Stress
    Olsovska, Katarina
    Kovar, Marek
    Brestic, Marian
    Zivcak, Marek
    Slamka, Pavol
    Shao, Hong Bo
    FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE, 2016, 7
  • [10] Variability in mesophyll conductance between barley genotypes, and effects on transpiration efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination
    Barbour, Margaret M.
    Warren, Charles R.
    Farquhar, Graham D.
    Forrester, Guy
    Brown, Hamish
    PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT, 2010, 33 (07) : 1176 - 1185