Advertisement

Photosynthesis Research

, Volume 136, Issue 3, pp 315–328 | Cite as

Anatomical and diffusional determinants inside leaves explain the difference in photosynthetic capacity between Cypripedium and Paphiopedilum, Orchidaceae

  • Zhong-Hui Yang
  • Wei Huang
  • Qiu-Yun Yang
  • Wei Chang
  • Shi-Bao Zhang
Original Article

Abstract

Comparing with other angiosperms, most members within the family Orchidaceae have lower photosynthetic capacities. However, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Cypripedium and Paphiopedilum are closely related phylogenetically in Orchidaceae, but their photosynthetic performances are different. We explored the roles of internal anatomy and diffusional conductance in determining photosynthesis in three Cypripedium and three Paphiopedilum species, and quantitatively analyzed their diffusional and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis. Paphiopedilum species showed lower light-saturated photosynthetic rate (A N), stomatal conductance (g s), and mesophyll conductance (g m) than Cypripedium species. A N was positively correlated with g s and g m. And yet, in both species A N was more strongly limited by g m than by biochemical factors or g s. The greater g s of Cypripedium was mainly affected by larger stomatal apparatus area and smaller pore depth, while the less g m of Paphiopedilum was determined by the reduced surface area of mesophyll cells and chloroplasts exposed to intercellular airspace per unit of leaf area, and much thicker cell wall thickness. These results suggest that leaf anatomical structure is the key factor affecting g m, which is largely responsible for the difference in photosynthetic capacity between those two genera. Our findings provide new insight into the photosynthetic physiology and functional diversification of orchids.

Keywords

Leaf anatomy Mesophyll conductance Orchidaceae Photosynthetic limitations Stomatal conductance 

Abbreviations

AN

Light-saturated net rate of CO2 assimilation at 380 µmol mol−1 CO2 concentration (20 °C for Cypripedium and 25 °C for Paphiopedilum) (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1)

As

Area of individual stomata (µm2)

Asc

Area of intercellular airspace in the substomatal cavity (µm2)

Ca

Ambient CO2 concentration (µmol mol−1)

Cc

Chloroplast CO2 concentration (µmol mol−1)

Ci

CO2 concentration in substomatal cavities (µmol mol−1)

CTab

Abaxial cuticle thicknesses (µm)

CTad

Adaxial cuticle thickness (µm)

Ctransition

Chloroplast CO2 concentration at which the transition from Rubisco to RuBP regeneration limitation occurs

ETab

Abaxial epidermis thickness (µm)

ETad

Adaxial epidermis thickness (µm)

ETR

Rate of linear electron transport in photochemistry at AN (µmol electron m−2 s−1)

ƒias

Intercellular airspace as a percentage of leaf volume (%)

gm

Mesophyll conductance (mol CO2 m−2 s−1)

gs

Stomatal conductance (mol CO2 m−2 s−1)

gtot

Total conductance (mol CO2 m−2 s−1)

Jmax

Maximum rate of electron transport (µmol electron m−2 s−1)

Kc

Michaelis–Menten constants for CO2 (µmol mol−1)

Ko

Michaelis–Menten constants for O2 (mmol mol−1)

Lb

Biochemical limitation of photosynthesis (%)

Lc

Total length of chloroplast perimeter facing the intercellular airspace (µm m−2)

LMA

Leaf dry mass per unit area (g m−2)

Lmc

Mesophyll conductance limitation (%)

Lmes

Total length of mesophyll cell perimeter facing the intercellular airspace (µm m−2)

Ls

Stomatal limitation (%)

LT

Leaf thickness (µm)

MT

Mesophyll layer thickness (µm)

Narea

Leaf nitrogen content per unit area (g m−2)

Nmass

Leaf nitrogen content per unit dry mass (%)

O

Intercellular O2 concentration (mmol mol−1)

PD

Pore depth (µm)

PNUE

Photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency (µmol s−1 CO2 mmol g−1 N)

Rd

Rate of mitochondrial respiration measured in the dark (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1)

RH

Relative humidity (%)

SA

Stomatal aperture area (µm2)

Sc/o

In vitro Rubisco specificity factor

Sc/S

Chloroplast surface area exposed to intercellular airspace per unit of leaf area (m2 m−2)

Sc/Smes

Proportion of exposed chloroplast to mesophyll surface areas (m2 m−2)

SCD

Substomatal cavity depth (µm)

SD

Stomatal density (mm−2)

SL

Stomatal length (µm)

Smes/S

Mesophyll surface area exposed to intercellular airspace per unit leaf area (m2 m−2)

Ss

Cross-sectional areas for mesophyll cells (m2 m−2)

SW

Stomatal width (µm)

Tchlor

Chloroplast thickness (µm)

Tcw

Cell wall thickness (µm)

Vc,max

Maximum rate of carboxylation (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1)

Vo,max

Maximum RuBP saturated rate of oxygenation (µmol O2 m−2 s−1)

VPD

Vapor pressure deficit (kPa)

W

Width of leaf section (µm)

Г*

CO2 concentration at which net CO2 fixation offsets CO2 loss from photorespiration (µmol mol−1)

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31670342, 31370362, 31400289, and 31670415) and the National Key Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2015BAD10B03).

Supplementary material

11120_2017_466_MOESM1_ESM.docx (141 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 141 KB)

References

  1. Araujo WL, Nunes-Nesi A, Osorio S, Usadel B, Fuentes D, Nagy R, Balbo I, Lehmann M, Studart-Witkowski C, Tohge T, Martinoia E, Jordana X, DaMatta FM, Fernie AR (2011) Antisense inhibition of the iron-sulphur subunit of succinate dehydrogenase enhances photosynthesis and growth in tomato via an organic acid-mediated effect on stomatal aperture. Plant Cell 23:600–627CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Assmann SM, Zeiger E (1985) Stomatal responses to CO2 in Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium-role of the guard-cell chloroplast. Plant Physiol 77:461–464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball JT, Woodrow IE, Berry JA (1987) A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In: Biggens JE (ed) Progress in photosynthesis research. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernacchi CJ, Singsaas EL, Pimentel C, Portis AR, Long SP (2001) Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco- limited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ 24:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer JS (2015) Turgor and the transport of CO2 and water across the cuticle (epidermis) of leaves. J Exp Bot 66:2625–2633CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodribb TJ, McAdam SA, Carins Murphy MR (2017) Xylem and stomata, coordinated through time and space. Plant Cell Environ 40:872–880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron KM, Chase MW, Whitten WM, Kores PJ, Jarrell DC, Albert VA, Yukawa T, Hills HG, Goldman DH (1999) A phylogenetic analysis of the Orchidaceae: evidence from rbcL nucleotide sequences. Am J Bot 86:208–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carriqui M, Cabrera HM, Conesa MA, Coopman RE, Douthe C, Gago J, Galle A, Galmes J, Ribas-Carbo M, Tomas M, Flexas J (2015) Diffusional limitations explain the lower photosynthetic capacity of ferns as compared with angiosperms in a common garden study. Plant Cell Environ 38:448–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang W, Zhang SB, Li SY, Hu H (2011) Ecophysiological significance of leaf traits in Cypripedium and Paphiopedilum. Physiol Plant 141:30–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Christenhusz MJM, Byng JW (2016) The number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa 261:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox AV, Pridgeon AM, Albert VA, Chase MW (1997) Phylogenetics of the slipper orchids (Cypripedioideae, Orchidaceae): nuclear rDNA ITS sequences. Plant Syst Evol 208:197–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crain BJ, Tremblay RL (2014) Do richness and rarity hotspots really matter for orchid conservation in light of anticipated habitat loss? Divers Distrib 20:652–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Boer HJ, Price CA, Wagner-Cremer F, Dekker SC, Franks PJ, Veneklaas EJ (2016) Optimal allocation of leaf epidermal area for gas exchange. New Phytol 210:1219–1228CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dressler RL (1993) Phylogeny and classification of the orchid family. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar-Co S, Sporck MJ, Sack L (2009) Leaf trait diversification and design in seven rare taxa of the Hawaiian Plantago radiation. Int J Plant Sci 170:61–75Google Scholar
  16. Evans JR, von Caemmerer S (1996) Carbon dioxide diffusion inside leaves. Plant Physiol 110:339–346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans JR, Kaldenhoff R, Genty B, Terashima I (2009) Resistances along the CO2 diffusion pathway inside leaves. J Exp Bot 60:2235–2248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Phys 33:317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fini A, Loreto F, Tattini M, Giordano C, Ferrini F, Brunetti C, Centritto M (2016) Mesophyll conductance plays a central role in leaf functioning of Oleaceae species exposed to contrasting sunlight irradiance. Physiol Plant 157:54–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Flexas J, Ribas-Carbo M, Hanson DT, Bota J, Otto B, Cifre J, McDowell N, Medrano H, Kaldenhoff R (2006) Tobacco aquaporin NtAQP1 is involved in mesophyll conductance to CO2 in vivo. Plant J 48:427–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Flexas J, Ribas-Carbo M, Diaz-Espejo A, Galmes J, Medrano H (2008) Mesophyll conductance to CO2: current knowledge and future prospects. Plant Cell Environ 31:602–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Flexas J, Barbour MM, Brendel O, Cabrera HM, Carriqui M, Diaz-Espejo A, Douthe C, Dreyer E, Ferrio JP, Gago J, Galle A, Galmes J, Kodama N, Medrano H, Niinemets U, Peguero-Pina JJ, Pou A, Ribas-Carbo M, Tomas M, Tosens T, Warren CR (2012) Mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO2: an unappreciated central player in photosynthesis. Plant Sci 193:70–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Flexas J, Carriqui M, Coopman RE, Gago J, Galmes J, Martorell S, Morales F, Diaz-Espejo A (2014) Stomatal and mesophyll conductances to CO2 in different plant groups: Underrated factors for predicting leaf photosynthesis responses to climate change? Plant Sci 226:41–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Franks PJ, Beerling DJ (2009) Maximum leaf conductance driven by CO2 effects on stomatal size and density over geologic time. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10343–10347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Franks PJ, Farquhar GD (2007) The mechanical diversity of stomata and its significance in gas-exchange control. Plant Physiol 143:78–87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Gago J, Coopman RE, Cabrera HM, Hermida C, Molins A, Conesa MA, Galmes J, Ribas-Carbo M, Flexas J (2013) Photosynthesis limitations in three fern species. Physiol Plant 149:599–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gago J, Daloso DM, Figueroa CM, Flexas J, Fernie AR, Nikoloski Z (2016) Relationships of leaf net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and mesophyll conductance to primary metabolism: A multispecies meta-analysis approach. Plant Physiol 171:265–279CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Giuliani R, Koteyeva N, Voznesenskaya E, Evans MA, Cousins AB, Edwards GE (2013) Coordination of leaf photosynthesis, transpiration, and structural traits in rice and wild relatives (genus Oryza). Plant Physiol 162:1632–1651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Grassi G, Magnani F (2005) Stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis as affected by drought and leaf ontogeny in ash and oak trees. Plant Cell Environ 28:834–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guan ZJ (2010) Leaf traits of Paphiopedilum and Cypripedium in Orchidaceae. PhD thesis, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  31. Guan ZJ, Zhang SB, Guan KY, Li SY, Hu H (2011) Leaf anatomical structures of Paphiopedilum and Cypripedium and their adaptive significance. J Plant Res 124:289–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Han JM, Meng HF, Wang SY, Jiang CD, Liu F, Zhang WF, Zhang YL (2016) Variability of mesophyll conductance and its relationship with water use efficiency in cotton leaves under drought pretreatment. J Plant Physiol 194:61–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Harley PC, Loreto F, Marco GD, Sharkey TD (1992) Theoretical considerations when estimating the mesophyll conductance to CO2 flux by analysis of the response of photosynthesis to CO2. Plant Physiol 98:1429–1436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Hew CS, Yong JWH (2004) The PHYSIOLOGY OF TROPICAL ORCHIDS IN RELATION TO THE INDUSTRY. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holbrook NM, Putz FE (1996) From epiphyte to tree: differences in leaf structure and leaf water relations associated with the transition in growth form in eight species of hemiepiphytes. Plant Cell Environ 19:631–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. James SA, Bell DT (2001) Leaf morphological and anatomical characteristics of heteroblastic Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Myrtaceae). Aust J Bot 49:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kerbauy GB, Takahashi CA, Lopez AM, Matsumura AT, Hamachi L, Félix LM, Pereira PN, Freschi L, Mercier H (2012) Crassulacean acid metabolism in epiphytic orchids: current knowledge, future perspectives. In: Najafpour MM (ed) Applied Photosynthesis. InTech, Rijeka, pp 81–104Google Scholar
  38. Laclau JP, Toutain F, M’Bou AT, Arnaud M, Joffre R, Ranger J (2004) The function of the superficial root mat in the biogeochemical cycles of nutrients in Congolese Eucalyptus plantations. Ann Bot 93:249–261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawson T, James W, Weyers J (1998) A surrogate measure of stomatal aperture. J Exp Bot 49:1397–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Long SP, Bernacchi CJ (2003) Gas exchange measurements, what can they tell us about the underlying limitations to photosynthesis? Procedures and sources of error. J Exp Bot 54:2393–2401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Loreto F, Centritto M, Chartzoulakis K (2003) Photosynthetic limitations in olive cultivars with different sensitivity to salt stress. Plant Cell Environ 26:595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreira ASFP., de Lemos JP, Zotz G, Isaias RMD (2009) Anatomy and photosynthetic parameters of roots and leaves of two shade-adapted orchids, Dichaea cogniauxiana Shltr. and Epidendrum secundum. Jacq Flora 204:604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muir CD, Hangarter RP, Moyle LC, Davis PA (2014) Morphological and anatomical determinants of mesophyll conductance in wild relatives of tomato (Solanum sect. Lycopersicon, sect. Lycopersicoides; Solanaceae). Plant Cell Environ 37:1415–1426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Niinemets Ü, Sack L (2006) Structural determinants of leaf light-harvesting capacity and photosynthetic potentials. Prog Bot 67:385–419Google Scholar
  45. Niinemets Ü, Cescatti A, Rodeghiero M, Tosens T (2005) Leaf internal diffusion conductance limits photosynthesis more strongly in older leaves of Mediterranean evergreen broad-leaved species. Plant Cell Environ 28:1552–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Niinemets Ü, Diaz-Espejo A, Flexas J, Galmes J, Warren CR (2009) Role of mesophyll diffusion conductance in constraining potential photosynthetic productivity in the field. J Exp Bot 60:2249–2270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Obeso JR (2002) The cost of reproduction in plants. New Phytol 155:321–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ocheltree TW, Nippert JB, Prasad PVV (2012) Changes in stomatal conductance along grass blades reflect changes in leaf structure. Plant Cell Environ 35:1040–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Oguchi R, Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2003) Does the photosynthetic light-acclimation need change in leaf anatomy? Plant Cell Environ 26:505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patakas A, Kofidis G, Bosabalidis AM (2003) The relationships between CO2 transfer mesophyll resistance and photosynthetic efficiency in grapevine cultivars. Sci Hortic-Amsterdam 97:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peguero-Pina JJ, Flexas J, Galmes J, Niinemets Ü, Sancho-Knapik D, Barredo G, Villarroya D, Gil-Pelegrin E (2012) Leaf anatomical properties in relation to differences in mesophyll conductance to CO2 and photosynthesis in two related Mediterranean Abies species. Plant Cell Environ 35:2121–2129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Peguero-Pina JJ, Siso S, Flexas J, Galmes J, Garcia-Nogales A, Niinemets Ü, Sancho-Knapik D, Saz MA, Gil-Pelegrin E (2017) Cell-level anatomical characteristics explain high mesophyll conductance and photosynthetic capacity in sclerophyllous Mediterranean oaks. New Phytol 214:585–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Sagardoy R, Vazquez S, Florez-Sarasa ID, Albacete A, Ribas-Carbo M, Flexas J, Abadia J, Morales F (2010) Stomatal and mesophyll conductances to CO2 are the main limitations to photosynthesis in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) plants grown with excess zinc. New Phytol 187:145–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sawada S, Sato M, Kasai A, Yaochi D, Kameya Y, Matsumoto I, Kasai M (2003) Analysis of the feed-forward effects of sink activity on the photosynthetic source-sink balance in single-rooted sweet potato leaves. I. Activation of RuBPcase through the development of sinks. Plant Cell Physiol 44:190–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Sharkey TD, Bernacchi CJ, Farquhar GD, Singsaas EL (2007) Fitting photosynthetic carbon dioxide response curves for C3 leaves. Plant Cell Environ 30:1035–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Shefferson RP (2006) Survival costs of adult dormancy and the confounding influence of size in lady’s slipper orchids, genus Cypripedium. Oikos 115:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Singsaas EL, Ort DR, Delucia EH (2004) Elevated CO2 effects on mesophyll conductance and its consequences for interpreting photosynthetic physiology. Plant Cell Environ 27:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor SH, Franks PJ, Hulme SP, Spriggs E, Christin PA, Edwards EJ, Woodward FI, Osborne CP (2012) Photosynthetic pathway and ecological adaptation explain stomatal trait diversity amongst grasses. New Phytol 193:387–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Terashima I, Hanba YT, Tazoe Y, Vyas P, Yano S (2006) Irradiance and phenotype: comparative eco-development of sun and shade leaves in relation to photosynthetic CO2 diffusion. J Exp Bot 57:343–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Thain JF (1983) Curvature correlation factors in the measurements of cell surface areas in plant tissues. J Exp Bot 34:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tholen D, Zhu XG (2011) The mechanistic basis of internal conductance: a theoretical analysis of mesophyll cell photosynthesis and CO2 diffusion. Plant Physiol 156:90–105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Tomas M, Flexas J, Copolovici L, Galmes J, Hallik L, Medrano H, Ribas-Carbo M, Tosens T, Vislap V, Niinemets U (2013) Importance of leaf anatomy in determining mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO2 across species: quantitative limitations and scaling up by models. J Exp Bot 64:2269–2281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Tosens T, Niinemets Ü, Westoby M, Wright IJ (2012) Anatomical basis of variation in mesophyll resistance in eastern Australian sclerophylls: news of a long and winding path. J Exp Bot 63:5105–5119CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Tosens T, Nishida K, Gago J, Coopman RE, Cabrera HM, Carriqui M, Laanisto L, Morales L, Nadal M, Rojas R, Talts E, Tomas M, Hanba Y, Niinemets Ü, Flexas J (2016) The photosynthetic capacity in 35 ferns and fern allies: mesophyll CO2 diffusion as a key trait. New Phytol 209:1576–1590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. von Caemmerer S (2000) Biochemical models of leaf photosynthesis. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  66. Warren CR, Adams MA (2006) Internal conductance does not scale with photosynthetic capacity: implications for carbon isotope discrimination and the economics of water and nitrogen use in photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ 29:192–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Xiong D, Flexas J, Yu T, Peng S, Huang J (2017) Leaf anatomy mediates coordination of leaf hydraulic conductance and mesophyll conductance to CO2 in Oryza. New Phytol 213:572–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Yamori W, Nagai T, Makino A (2011) The rate-limiting step for CO2 assimilation at different temperatures is influenced by the leaf nitrogen content in several C3 crop species. Plant Cell Environ 34:764–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Yamori W, Masumoto C, Fukayama H, Makino A (2012) Rubisco activase is a key regulator of non-steady-state photosynthesis at any leaf temperature and to a lesser extent of steady-state photosynthesis at high temperature. Plant J 71:871–880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang SB, Hu H, Xu K, Li ZH (2006) Photosynthetic performances of five Cypripedium species after transplanting. Photosynthetica 44:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang SB, Guan Z, Chang W, Ning Y, Hu H (2010) Ecophysiological traits of Paphiopedilum and Cypripedium. Acta Hortic 878:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhang SB, Guan ZJ, Sun M, Zhang JJ, Cao KF, Hu H (2012) Evolutionary association of stomatal traits with leaf vein density in Paphiopedilum, Orchidaceae. PLoS One 7:e40080CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang SB, Dai Y, Hao GY, Li JW, Fu XW, Zhang JL (2015) Differentiation of water-related traits in terrestrial and epiphytic Cymbidium species. Front Plant Sci 6:260PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Economic Plants and Biotechnology, Kunming Institute of BotanyChinese Academy of SciencesKunmingChina
  2. 2.Yunnan Key Laboratory for Wild Plant ResourcesKunmingChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations