, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 49–54 | Cite as

Ecology of SO2 resistance: III. Metabolic changes of C3 and C4Atriplex species due to SO2 fumigations

  • William E. Winner
  • Harold A. Mooney


The photosynthetic processes of two ecologically-matched, herbaceous Atriplex species differed in their response to SO2 fumigations. Atriplex triangularis, a C3 species, was more sensitive than the C4 species, A. sabulosa. This difference in sensitivity can be attributed in part to the higher conductance of the C3 species in normal air and saturating light as well as greater stimulation of stomatal opening following exposure to SO2. In addition, photosynthetic mechanisms of the C3 species had higher intrinsic SO2 sensitivity than the C4 species. Differences between photosynthetic responses of these two species may also reflect differences in morphological configuration of mesophyll tissues and greater SO2 sensitivity of the initial photosynthetic carboxlating enzyme of the C3 species. It is likely that certain of the differences in photosynthetic SO2 sensitivity of these contrasting C3 and C4Atriplex species are characteristic of C3 and C4 plants in general.


Enzyme High Conductance Metabolic Change Stomatal Opening Saturate Light 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


PEP carboxylase

phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase

RuBP carboxylase

ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Björkman O, Badger M (1977) Thermal stability of photosynthetic enzymes in heat- and cool-adapted C4 species. Carnegie Inst Wash Year Book 76:346–354Google Scholar
  2. Björkman O, Nobs M, Berry J, Mooney H, Nicholson F, Catanzaro B (1973) Physiological adaptations to diverse environments. Approaches and facilities to study plant responses to contrasting thermal and water regimes. Carnegie Inst Wash Year Book 72:393–403Google Scholar
  3. Black CR, Black VJ (1979) The effects of low concentrations of sulphur dioxide on stomatal conductance and epidermal survival in field bean (Vicia faba L) J Exp Bot 30:291–298Google Scholar
  4. Black CR, Black VJ (1980) Light and electron scanning electron microscopy of SO2-induced injury to leaf surfaces of field bean (Vicia faba L) Plant Cell and Environ. 2:329–333Google Scholar
  5. Black VJ, Unsworth NH (1979) Effects of low concentrations of sulphur dioxide on net photosynthesis and dark respiration of Vicia faba. J Exp Bot 30:473–483Google Scholar
  6. De Jong TM (1978) Comparative gas exchange and growth responses of C3 and C4 beach species grown at different salinities. Oecologia (Berl) 36:59–68Google Scholar
  7. Ehleringer J, Björkman O (1977) Quantum yields for CO2 uptake in C3 and C4 plants Plant Physiol 59:86–90Google Scholar
  8. Farrar JF, Relton J, Rutter AJ (1977) Sulphur dioxide and the growth of Pinus sylvestris. J Appl Ecol 14:861–875Google Scholar
  9. Majernik O, Mansfield TA (1970) Direct effect of SO2 pollution on the degree of opening of stomata. Nature 227:377–378Google Scholar
  10. Majernik O, Mansfield RA (1972) Stomatal responses to raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations during exposure of plants to SO2 pollution. Environ Pollut 3:1–7Google Scholar
  11. Mansfield TA, Majernik O (1970) Can stomata play a part in protecting plants against air pollutants. Environ Pollut 1:149–154Google Scholar
  12. Mukerji SK, Yang SF (1974) Phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase from spinach leaf — inhibition by sulfite ion. Plant Physiol 53:829–834Google Scholar
  13. Muller RN, Miller JE, Sprugel DG (1979) Photosynthetic response of field-grown soybeans to fumigations with sulphur dioxide. J Appl Ecol 16:567–576Google Scholar
  14. Murray DR, Bradbeer JW (1971) Inhibition of photosynthetic CO2 fixation in spinach chloroplasts by α-Hydroxy 2-Pyridinemethanesulfonate. Phytochem 10:1999–2003Google Scholar
  15. Noland TL, Kozlowski TT (1979) Effects of SO2 on stomatal aperture and sulfur uptake of woody angiosperm seedlings. Can J For Res 9:57–62Google Scholar
  16. Osmond CB, Troughton JH, Goodchild DJ (1969) Physiological, biochemical and structural studies of photosynthesis and photorespiration in two species of Atriplex. Z Pflanzenphysiol 61:218–237Google Scholar
  17. Rosenberg LL, Capindale JB, Whetley FR (1958) Formation of oxalacetate and aspartate from phospho-enol-pyruvate in spinach leaf chloroplast extract. Nature 181:632–633Google Scholar
  18. Sij JW, Swanson CA (1974) Short-term kinetic studies on the inhibition of photosynthesis by sulfur dioxide. J Environ Qual 3:103–107Google Scholar
  19. Winner WE, Mooney HA (1980) Ecology of SO2 resistance: I Effects of fumigations on gas exchange of deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Oecologia (Berl)Google Scholar
  20. Winner WE, Mooney HA (1980) Ecology of SO2 resistance: II Photosynthetic changes of shrubs in relation to SO2 absorption and stomatal behavior. Oecologia (Berl)Google Scholar
  21. Wong SC, Cowan IR, Farquhar GD (1979) Stomatal conductance correlates with photosynthetic capacity. Nature 282:424–426Google Scholar
  22. Ziegler I (1972) The effect of SOSO3-2 on the activity of ribulose-1,5-diphosphate carboxylase in isolated spinach chloroplasts. Planta 103:155–163Google Scholar
  23. Ziegler I (1973) Effect of sulphite on phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase and malate formation in extracts of Zea mays. Phytochemistry 12:1027–1030Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Winner
    • 1
  • Harold A. Mooney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations