Advertisement

Evaluation of photosynthetic efficiency of yam bean (Pachyrhizus erosus L.) at saturating photon flux density under elevated carbon dioxide

  • Velumani Ravi
  • Ancy Pushpaleela
  • Saravanan Raju
  • Byju Gangadharan
  • Sanket Jijabrao MoreEmail author
Research Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The future CO2 concentration is projected to reach 900–1000 ppm levels by the end of twenty-first century, pertaining to global climatic changes. Consequences of climate change such as changes in mean climatic conditions, increasing extreme weather events, relentless increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and increasing pest damage pose serious threats to agricultural productivity. An experiment was planned to assess the response of yam bean to elevated CO2, as it is of paramount importance to identify photosynthetically efficient climate-smart crops and varieties to meet future food demand. The net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs) and intercellular CO2 (Ci) of yam bean variety, Rajendra Misrikand-1 was recorded under elevated carbon dioxide (400–1000 ppm) and photon flux density (PPFD; 50–2000 μmol m−2 h−1) at 30 ± 2 °C, 70–80% relative humidity and 0.8–1.2 kPa vapour pressure deficit. The mean Pn rate steadily increased at 200–1000 ppm owing to enhanced intercellular CO2. The same trend was observed in the case of intercellular CO2. However, contrasting results were recorded with regard to gs, which steadily decreased at ascending carbon dioxide concentrations. Further, Pn had a significant (P < 0.001) linear correlation with the PPFD (R2 = 0.973). Yam bean was found to be responsive to elevated carbon dioxide as Pn rate at 1000 ppm increased up to 23% relative to 400 ppm.

Keywords

Climate change Elevated carbon dioxide Intercellular carbon dioxide Photosynthesis Stomatal conductance Yam bean Pachyrhizus erosus L. 

Notes

References

  1. Ainsworth EA (2008) Rice production in a changing climate: a meta-analysis of responses to elevated carbon dioxide and elevated ozone concentration. Glob Change Biol 14:1642–1650.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01594.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth EA, Rogers AA (2007) The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant, Cell Environ 30:258–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth EA, Davey PA, Bernacchi CJ, Dermody OC, Heaton EA, Moore DJ, Morgan PB, Naidu SL, Ra HSY, Zhu XG, Curtis PS, Long SP (2002) A meta-analysis of eCO2 effects on soybean (Glycine max) physiology, growth and yield. Glob Change Biol 8:695–709.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00498.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cen YP, Sage RF (2005) The regulation of Rubisco activity in response to variation in temperature and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure in sweet potato. Plant Physiol 139(2):979–990.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.105.066233 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cruz JL, Alves AAC, LeCain DR, Ellis DD, Morgan JA (2014) Effect of elevated CO2 concentration and nitrate: ammonium ratios on gas exchange and growth of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Plant Soil 374:33–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1869-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Czeck BC, Jahren AH, Deenik JL, Crow SE, Schubert BA, Stewart M (2012) Growth, yield, and nutritional responses of chamber-grown sweet potato to ecarbon dioxide levels expected across the next 200 years. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2012, abstractGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabriel LF, Streck NA, Uhlmann LO, da Silva MR, da Silva SD (2014) Climate change and its effects on cassava crop. Rev Bras Eng Agric Ambient 18:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao J, Han X, Saman S, Li P, Zong Y-Z, Dong Q, Lin E-D, Hao X-Y (2015) Leaf photosynthesis and yield components of mung bean under fully open-air elevated [CO2]. J Integr Agric 14(5):977–983.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s2095-3119(14)60941-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gleadow RM, Evans RJ, McCaffery S, Cavagnaro RT (2009) Growth and nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown in elevated CO2. Plant Biol 11(Suppl. 1):76–82.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hao XY, Han X, Li P, Yang HB, Lin ED (2011) Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on mung bean leaf photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 22:2776–2780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. ICAR-CTCRI (2018) Annual report 2017–2018. ICAR-Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India, pp 1–189Google Scholar
  12. IPCC (2007) The physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Kay DE (revised by Gooding EGB) (1987) Crop and product digest No. 2-root crops. 2nd edn. Tropical Development and Research Institute, London, xv, p 380Google Scholar
  14. Suresh Kumar J, More Sanket J, Ravi V, Byju G, George J (2016) Leaf area estimation in yam bean (Pachyrrhizus erosus L.) using linear measurement of leaf parameters. J Root Crops 42(2):86–89Google Scholar
  15. Lammertsmaa EI, Jan Hugo, de Boerb Dekkerb SC, Dilcherc DL, Lottera AF, Wagner-Cremera F (2011) Global CO2 rise leads to reduced maximum stomatal conductance in Florida vegetation. PNAS 108:4035–4040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leakey AD, Ainsworth EA, Bernacchi CJ, Rogers A, Long SP, Ort DR (2009) Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations; six important lessons from FACE. J Exp Bot 60:2859–2876.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Nösberger J, Ort DR (2006) Food for thought: lower than expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312:1918–1921.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114722 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Makino A, Mae T (1999) Photosynthesis and plant growth at elevels of CO2. Plant Cell Physiol 40:999–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a029493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAdam SAM, Brodribb TJ (2015) The evolution of mechanisms driving the stomatal response to vapor pressure deficit. Plant Physiol 167:833–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Medlyn BE, Barton CVM, Broadmeadow MSJ, Ceulemans R, De Angelis P, Forstreuter M, Freeman M, Jackson SB, Kellomäki S, Laitat E, Rey A, Sigurdsson RBD, Strassemeyer J, Wang K, Curtis PS, Jarvis PG (2001) Stomatal conductance of forest species after long-term exposure to elevated CO2 concentration: a synthesis. New Phytol 149:247–264.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00028.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merilo E, Yarmolinsky D, Jalakas P, Parik H, Tulva I, Rasulov B, Kilk K, Kollista H (2018) Stomatal VPD response: there is more to the story than ABA. Plant Physiol 176:851–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. More Sanket J, Ravi V, Saravanan R (2017) Management of heat stress to enhance growth, photosynthesis and corm yield of elephant foot yam [Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.)]. Sci Agric 19(2):47–54.  https://doi.org/10.15192/pscp.sa.2017.19.2.4754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. More Sanket J, Ravi V, Saravanan R (2018) Exogenous application of Salicylic acid ameliorates heat stress tolerance in elephant foot yam [Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.)] by up-regulating plant growth and photosynthetic activities. In: Proceedings of national environment and climate change congress (NECCC—2018), 20–22 March 2018, Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, KeralaGoogle Scholar
  24. More Sanket J, Ravi V, Saravanan R (2019) Tropical tuber crops. In: de Freitas ST, Pareek S (eds) Postharvest physiological disorders in fruits and vegetables. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 719–757.  https://doi.org/10.1201/b22001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mortley D, Hill J, Loretan P, Bonsi C, Hill W, Hileman D, Terse A (1996) Elevated carbon dioxide influences yield and photosynthetic responses of hydroponically-grown sweet potato. Acta Hortic 440:31–36.  https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1996.440.6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nedunchezhiyan M, Shivalingaswamy TM, Naskar SK (2002) Effect of sowing dates on biomass production and yield of yam bean (Pachyrrhizus erosus L. Urban) genotypes. J Root Crops 28:26–29Google Scholar
  27. Nedunzchehiyan M, Misra RS, Shivalingaswamy TM (2001) Effect of spacing and time of harvesting on dry matter production and tuber yield of yam bean. J Root Crops 27:202–204Google Scholar
  28. Ocheltree TW, Nippert JB, Prasad PVV (2014) Stomatal responses to changes in vapor pressure deficit reflect tissue-specific differences in hydraulic conductance. Plant, Cell Environ 37:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pal Madan, Sangeetha K (2009) Impact of elevated CO2 concentration on growth and yield of chickpea. In: Aggarwal PK (ed) Global climate change and Indian agriculture: case studies from the ICAR Network Project. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp 28–31Google Scholar
  30. Pallardy SG (2008) Photosynthesis. In: Pallardy SG (ed) Physiology of woody plants, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 107–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088765-1.50006-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prasad PVV, Allen LH Jr, Boote KJ (2005) Crop responses to ecarbon dioxide and interaction with temperature: grain legumes. J Crop Improv 13:113–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ravi V (2003) Diurnal changes in photosynthetic characteristics of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.). Adv Hortic Sci 17:159–164Google Scholar
  33. Ravi V, Saravanan R (2001) Characteristics of photosynthesis and respiration in cassava and sweet potato. J Root Crops 27:258–262Google Scholar
  34. Ravi V, Saravanan R, Byju G, Nair KP, George James (2017) Photosynthetic response of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) to photon flux density and elevated carbon dioxide. Indian J Agric Sci 87(9):1231–1237Google Scholar
  35. Ravi V, More Sanket J, Saravanan R, Pallavi Nair K, Byju G (2018) Evaluation of photosynthetic effeciency of elephant-foot yam (Amorphophallus paeoniifolius) to photon flux density and elevated CO2. Curr Hortic 6(1):55–63Google Scholar
  36. Ravi V, More Sanket J, Saravanan R, Byju G, Nedunchezhiyan M, Aasha Devi A, Pallavi Nair K (2019) Potential increase in photosynthetic response of taro (Colocasia esculenta L.) to photon flux density and elevated CO2. J Environ Biol 40:111–118.  https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/40/1/MRN-786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenthal DM, Slattery RA, Miller RE, Grennan AK, Cavagnaro TR, Fauquet CM, Gleadow RM, Ort DR (2012) Cassava about-FACE: greater than expected yield stimulation of cassava (Manihot esculenta) by future CO2 levels. Glob Change Biol 18:2661–2675.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02726.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sage RF, Sharkey TD, Seemann JR (1989) Acclimation of photosynthesis to eCO2 in five C3 species. Plant Physiol 89:590–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sathish P, Vijay Kumar G, Jyothi Lakshmi N, Vanaja M, Yadav SK, Vagheera P (2014) Impact of CO2 enhancement on photosynthesis and protein profile-response studies with a CO2 responsive blackgram genotype. Int J Appl Biol Pharm Technol 5:93–98Google Scholar
  40. Silva ES, Silva Filho DF, Ticona-Benavente CA (2016) Diversity of yam bean (Pachyrhizus spp. Fabaceae) based on morphoagronomic traits in the Brazilian Amazon. Acta Amaz 46(3):233–240.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201504774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sørensen M (1996) Yam bean (Pachyrhizus DC.). Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 2. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, RomeGoogle Scholar
  42. Taub D (2010) Effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide on plants. Nat Educ Knowl 3(10):21Google Scholar
  43. Thinh NC, Shimono H, Kumagai E, Kawasaki M (2017) Effects of elevated CO2 concentration on growth and photosynthesis of Chinese yam under different temperature regimes. Plant Prod Sci 20(2):227–236.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2017.1283963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vimala B, Nambisan B (2011) Evaluation of yam bean for yield and proximate composition. J Root Crops 37:19–23Google Scholar
  45. Vu JCV, Allen LH, Boote KJ, Bowes G (1997) Effects of eCO2 and temperature on photosynthesis and Rubisco in rice and soybean. Plant, Cell Environ 20:68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.1997.d01-10.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wheeler RM, Mackowiak CL, Sager JC, Knott WM (1994) Growth of soybean and potato at high CO2 partial pressure. Adv Space Res 14:251–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(94)90305-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Xu Z, Jiang Y, Jia B, Zhou G (2016) Elevated-CO2 response of stomata and its dependence on environmental factors. Front Plant Sci 7:657.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00657 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Prof. H.S. Srivastava Foundation for Science and Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Crop ProductionICAR – Central Tuber Crops Research InstituteSreekariyamIndia
  2. 2.Academy of Climate Change Education and ResearchKerala Agricultural UniversityThrissurIndia
  3. 3.Division of Crop UtilizationICAR – Central Tuber Crops Research InstituteSreekariyamIndia

Personalised recommendations