Leaf area growth determines the light interception capacity of a crop and is often used as a surrogate for plant growth in high-throughput phenotyping systems. The relationship between leaf area growth and growth in terms of mass will depend on how carbon is partitioned among new leaf area, leaf mass, root mass, reproduction, and respiration. A model of leaf area growth in terms of photosynthetic rate and carbon partitioning to different plant organs was developed and tested with Arabidopsis thaliana L. Heynh. ecotype Columbia (Col-0) and a mutant line, gigantea-2 (gi-2), which develops very large rosettes. Data obtained from growth analysis and gas exchange measurements was used to train a genetic programming algorithm to parameterize and test the above model. The relationship between leaf area and plant biomass was found to be non-linear and variable depending on carbon partitioning. The model output was sensitive to the rate of photosynthesis but more sensitive to the amount of carbon partitioned to growing thicker leaves. The large rosette size of gi-2 relative to that of Col-0 resulted from relatively small differences in partitioning to new leaf area vs. leaf thickness.

No abstract

Incident irradiance on plant leaves often fluctuates, causing dynamic photosynthesis. Whereas steady-state photosynthetic responses to environmental factors have been extensively studied, knowledge of dynamic modulation of photosynthesis remains scarce and scattered. This review addresses this discrepancy by summarizing available data and identifying the research questions necessary to advance our understanding of interactions between environmental factors and dynamic behaviour of photosynthesis using a mechanistic framework. Firstly, dynamic photosynthesis is separated into sub-processes related to proton and electron transport, non-photochemical quenching, control of metabolite flux through the Calvin cycle (activation states of Rubisco and RuBP regeneration, and post-illumination metabolite turnover), and control of CO₂ supply to Rubisco (stomatal and mesophyll conductance changes). Secondly, the modulation of dynamic photosynthesis and its sub-processes by environmental factors is described. Increases in ambient CO₂ concentration and temperature (up to ~35°C) enhance rates of photosynthetic induction and decrease its loss, facilitating more efficient dynamic photosynthesis. Depending on the sensitivity of stomatal conductance, dynamic photosynthesis may additionally be modulated by air humidity. Major knowledge gaps exist regarding environmental modulation of loss of photosynthetic induction, dynamic changes in mesophyll conductance, and the extent of limitations imposed by stomatal conductance for different species and environmental conditions. The study of mutants or genetic transformants for specific processes under various environmental conditions could provide significant progress in understanding the control of dynamic photosynthesis.

No abstract

No abstract