Foliage photosynthetic and structural traits were studied in 15 species with a wide range of foliage anatomies to gain insight into the importance of key anatomical traits in the limitation of diffusion of CO2 from substomatal cavities to chloroplasts. The relative importance of different anatomical traits in constraining CO2 diffusion was evaluated using a quantitative model. Mesophyll conductance (g m) was most strongly correlated with chloroplast exposed surface to leaf area ratio (S c/S) and cell wall thickness (T cw), but, depending on foliage structure, the overall importance of g m in constraining photosynthesis and the importance of different anatomical traits in the restriction of CO2 diffusion varied. In species with mesophytic leaves, membrane permeabilities and cytosol and stromal conductance dominated the variation in g m. However, in species with sclerophytic leaves, g m was mostly limited by T cw. These results demonstrate the major role of anatomy in constraining mesophyll diffusion conductance and, consequently, in determining the variability in photosynthetic capacity among species.

Mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO(2) is a key photosynthetic trait that has been studied intensively in the past years. The intention of the present review is to update knowledge of g(m), and highlight the important unknown and controversial aspects that require future work. The photosynthetic limitation imposed by mesophyll conductance is large, and under certain conditions can be the most significant photosynthetic limitation. New evidence shows that anatomical traits, such as cell wall thickness and chloroplast distribution are amongst the stronger determinants of mesophyll conductance, although rapid variations in response to environmental changes might be regulated by other factors such as aquaporin conductance. Gaps in knowledge that should be research priorities for the near future include: how different is mesophyll conductance among phylogenetically distant groups and how has it evolved? Can mesophyll conductance be uncoupled from regulation of the water path? What are the main drivers of mesophyll conductance? The need for mechanistic and phenomenological models of mesophyll conductance and its incorporation in process-based photosynthesis models is also highlighted.

No abstract

Summary Ferns and fern allies have low photosynthetic rates compared with seed plants. Their photosynthesis is thought to be limited principally by physical CO2 diffusion from the atmosphere to chloroplasts. The aim of this study was to understand the reasons for low photosynthesis in species of ferns and fern allies (Lycopodiopsida and Polypodiopsida). We performed a comprehensive assessment of the foliar gas‐exchange and mesophyll structural traits involved in photosynthetic function for 35 species of ferns and fern allies. Additionally, the leaf economics spectrum (the interrelationships between photosynthetic capacity and leaf/frond traits such as leaf dry mass per unit area or nitrogen content) was tested. Low mesophyll conductance to CO2 was the main cause for low photosynthesis in ferns and fern allies, which, in turn, was associated with thick cell walls and reduced chloroplast distribution towards intercellular mesophyll air spaces. Generally, the leaf economics spectrum in ferns follows a trend similar to that in seed plants. Nevertheless, ferns and allies had less nitrogen per unit DW than seed plants (i.e. the same slope but a different intercept) and lower photosynthesis rates per leaf mass area and per unit of nitrogen.

A key objective for sustainable agriculture and forestry is to breed plants with both high carbon gain and water-use efficiency (WUE). At the level of leaf physiology, this implies increasing net photosynthesis (A N) relative to stomatal conductance (g s). Here, we review evidence for CO2 diffusional constraints on photosynthesis and WUE. Analyzing past observations for an extensive pool of crop and wild plant species that vary widely in mesophyll conductance to CO2 (g m), g s, and foliage A N, it was shown that both g s and g m limit A N, although the relative importance of each of the two conductances depends on species and conditions. Based on Fick's law of diffusion, intrinsic WUE (the ratio A N/g s) should correlate on the ratio g m/g s, and not g m itself. Such a correlation is indeed often observed in the data. However, since besides diffusion A N also depends on photosynthetic capacity (i.e., V c,max), this relationship is not always sustained. It was shown that only in a very few cases, genotype selection has resulted in simultaneous increases of both A N and WUE. In fact, such a response has never been observed in genetically modified plants specifically engineered for either reduced g s or enhanced g m. Although increasing g m alone would result in increasing photosynthesis, and potentially increasing WUE, in practice, higher WUE seems to be only achieved when there are no parallel changes in g s. We conclude that for simultaneous improvement of A N and WUE, genetic manipulation of g m should avoid parallel changes in g s, and we suggest that the appropriate trait for selection for enhanced WUE is increased g m/g s.

No abstract

Water is critical for viticulture sustainability since grape production, quality and economic viability are largely dependent on water availability. The total water consumption of vineyards, 300 to 700 mm, is generally higher than the annual average precipitation in many viticultural areas, which induces a risk for sustainability of vineyards. Improving vineyard water use efficiency (WUE) is therefore crucial for a sustainable viticulture industry in semi-arid regions. Increased sustainability of water resources for vineyards can be achieved using both agronomical technology and cultivar selection. Here, we review advances in grapevine water use efficiency related to changes in agronomical practices and genetic improvements. Agronomical practices focus on increasing green water use by increasing soil water storage capacity, reducing direct soil water loss, or limiting early transpiration losses. Cover crops for semi-arid areas show a favorable effect, but careful management is needed to avoid excessive water consumption by the cover crop. Canopy management practices to reduce excessive water use are also analyzed. This is a genetic based review focused on identifying cultivars with higher WUE.

Improving water use efficiency (WUE) in grapevines is essential for vineyard sustainability under the increasing aridity induced by global climate change. WUE reflects the ratio between the carbon assimilated by photosynthesis and the water lost in transpiration. Maintaining stomata partially closed by regulated deficit irrigation or partial root drying represents an opportunity to increase WUE, although at the expense of decreased photosynthesis and, potentially, decreased yield. It would be even better to achieve increases in WUE by improving photosynthesis without increasing water loses. Although this is not yet possible, it could potentially be achieved by genetic engineering. This review presents current knowledge and relevant results that aim to improve WUE in grapevines by biotechnology and genetic engineering. The expected benefits of these manipulations on WUE of grapevines under water stress conditions are modelled. There are two main possible approaches to achieve this goal: (i) to improve CO2 diffusion to the sites of carboxylation without increasing stomatal conductance; and (ii) to improve the carboxylation efficiency of Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco). The first goal could be attained by increasing mesophyll conductance to CO2, which partly depends on aquaporins. The second approach could be achieved by replacing Rubisco from grapevine with Rubiscos from other C3 species with higher specificity for CO2. In summary, the physiological bases and future prospects for improving grape yield and WUE under drought are established. AbbreviationsRubisco ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase; RuBP ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate; WUE water use efficiency; WUEC crop WUE; WUEleaf leaf-level WUE; WUEWP whole-plant WUE; WUEY yield WUE