Photosynthesis in the water‐stressed C4grassSetaria sphacelatais mainly limited by stomata with both rapidly and slowly imposed water deficits
- 23 June 2004
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Physiologia Plantarum
- Vol. 121 (3) , 409-420
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2004.00328.x
Abstract
A comparison of the effects of a rapid and a slowly imposed water deficit on photosynthesis was performed inSetaria sphacelatavar.splendida(Stapf) Clayton, a C4NADP‐ME grass. Gas exchange was measured in rapidly and slowly dehydrated adult leaves either under atmospheric CO2partial pressure with an infrared gas analyser or under saturating CO2partial pressure with a leaf disc oxygen electrode. These measurements were used to calculate stomatal and non‐stomatal limitations to photosynthesis. These were further investigated using modulated chlorophyllafluorescence measurements and photosynthetic pigment quantification. The decrease of net photosynthesis, leaf conductance and water use efficiency was more pronounced under rapid stress than in slow stress. However, photosynthesis is always mainly limited by stomata in both types of stress, albeit the contribution of non‐stomatal limitations increases at severe water deficits in slow stress experiments. The substomatal CO2partial pressure significantly increased in both types of stress, suggesting an increased resistance due to an internal barrier to CO2diffusion. Physical alterations in the structure of the intercellular spaces due to leaf shrinkage may account for these results. The maximal photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (PSII) was remarkably resistant to stress, as theFv/Fmratio decreased only at severe water deficit. On the contrary, the effective photochemical efficiency of PSII (ΔF/F′m) measured under high actinic light decreased linearly in both types of stress, although in a more pronounced way under rapid stress. A similar variation in photochemical quenching suggests that the decrease of ΔF/F′mis mainly due to the closure of PSII reaction centres. The non‐photochemical quenching did not change significantly except under severe dehydration indicating that the energization state of thylakoids remained stable under stress. The decrease observed in photosynthetic pigments may be an adaptation to stress rather than a limiting factor to photosynthesis. Results suggests that, although intrinsic mesophyll metabolic inhibitions occur, stomatal limitation to CO2diffusion is the main reason for the decrease in photosynthesis.Keywords
This publication has 68 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of Chlorophyll Fluorescence as a Probe for Drought Stress in Willow LeavesPlant Physiology, 1990
- Light Energy Dissipation under Water Stress ConditionsPlant Physiology, 1990
- Effects of Water Vapor Pressure Deficit on Photochemical and Fluorescence Yields in Tobacco Leaf TissuePlant Physiology, 1990
- An examination of factors contributing to non-photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence in barley leavesBiochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics, 1989
- Mild Water Stress Effects on Carbon-Reduction-Cycle Intermediates, Ribulose Bisphosphate Carboxylase Activity, and Spatial Homogeneity of Photosynthesis in Intact LeavesPlant Physiology, 1989
- Fluorescence Quenching and Gas Exchange in a Water Stressed C3 Plant, Digitalis lanataPlant Physiology, 1988
- Photon yield of O2 evolution and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77 K among vascular plants of diverse originsPlanta, 1987
- [34] Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranesPublished by Elsevier ,1987
- Chlorophyll A fluorescence transient as an indicator of water potential of leavesPlant Science Letters, 1981
- DIFFUSIVE RESISTANCE, TRANSPIRATION, AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN SINGLE LEAVES OF CORN AND SORGHUM IN RELATION TO LEAF WATER POTENTIALCanadian Journal of Plant Science, 1973