Advertisement

Photosynthetica

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 395–400 | Cite as

Responses of cotton and wheat photosynthesis and growth to cyclic variation in carbon dioxide concentration

  • J. A. Bunce
Article

Abstract

The carbon dioxide concentration in free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) systems typically has rapid fluctuations. In our FACE system, power spectral analysis of CO2 concentration measured every second with an open path analyzer indicated peaks in variation with a period of about one minute. I used open-top chambers to expose cotton and wheat plants to either a constant elevated CO2 concentration of 180 μmol mol−1 above that of outside ambient air, or to the same mean CO2 concentration, but with the CO2 enrichment cycling between about 30 and 330 μmol mol−1 above the concentration of outside ambient air, with a period of one minute. Three short-term replicate plantings of cotton were grown in Beltsville, Maryland with these CO2 concentration treatments imposed for 27-day periods over two summers, and one winter wheat crop was grown from sowing to maturity. In cotton, leaf gas-exchange measurements of the continuously elevated treatment and the fluctuating treatment indicated that the fluctuating CO2 concentration treatment consistently resulted in substantial down-regulation of net photosynthetic rate (P N) and stomatal conductance (g s). Total shoot biomass of the vegetative cotton plants in the fluctuating CO2 concentration treatment averaged 30% less than in the constantly elevated CO2 concentration treatment at 27 days after planting. In winter wheat, leaf gas-exchange measurements also indicated that down-regulation of P N and g s occurred in flag leaves in the fluctuating CO2 concentration treatment, but the effect was not as consistent in other leaves, nor as severe as found in cotton. However, wheat grain yields were 12% less in the fluctuating CO2 concentration treatment compared with the constant elevated CO2 concentration treatment. Comparison with wheat yields in chambers without CO2 addition indicated a nonsignificant increase of 5% for the fluctuating elevated CO2 concentration treatment, and a significant increase of 19% for the constant elevated treatment. The results suggest that treatments with fluctuating elevated CO2 concentrations could underestimate plant growth at projected future atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Additional key words

acclimation down-regulation stomatal conductance 

Abbreviations

Ci

CO2 concentration in the substomatal (intercellular) airspace

FACE

free air carbon dioxide enrichment

gs

stomatal conductance

PN

net photosynthetic rate

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bounoua, L., Collatz, G.J., Sellers, P.J. et al.: Interaction between vegetation and climate: radiative and physiological effects of doubled atmospheric CO2. — J. Climate 12: 309–324, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunce, J.A.: Performance characteristics of an area distributed free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) system. — Agr. Forest Meteorol. 151: 1152–1157, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardon, Z.G., Berry, J.A., Woodrow, I.E.: Evidence of the extent and direction of average stomatal response in Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. on the frequency of fluctuations in environmental stimuli. — Plant Physiol. 105: 1007–1013, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hendrey, G.R., Long, S.P., McKee, I.F., Baker, N.R.: Can photosynthesis respond to short-term fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide? — Photosynth. Res. 51: 179–184, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hendrey, G.R., Ellsworth, D.S., Lewin, K.F., Nagy, J.: A freeair enrichment systems for exposing tall forest vegetation to elevated atmospheric CO2. — Global Change Biol. 5: 293–309, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holtum, J.A.M., Winter, K.: Photosynthetic CO2 uptake in seedlings of two tropical tree species exposed to oscillating elevated concentrations of CO2. — Planta 218: 152–158, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kimball, B.A., Pinter, P.J.,Jr., Wall, G.W. et al.: Comparisons of responses of vegetation to elevated carbon dioxide in freeair and open-top chamber facilities. — In: Allen, L.H.,Jr., Kirkham, M.B., Olszyk, D.M., Whitman, C.E. (ed.): Advances in Carbon Dioxide Research. Pp.113–130. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. Amer., and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison 1997.Google Scholar
  8. Okada, M., Lieffering, H., Nakamura, H., Yoshimoto, M., Kim, H.Y., Kobayashi, K.: Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) using pure CO2 injection: system description. — New Phytol. 150: 251–260, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory, USDA-ARSBeltsville Agricultural Research CenterBeltsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations