Browsing by Author "Santiago, Louis S"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Global effects of soil and climate on leaf photosynthetic traits and rates(Wiley, 2015) Maire, Vincent; Wright, Ian J; Prentice, I. Colin; Batjes, Niels H; Bhaskar, Radika; Bodegom, Peter M; Cornwell, Will K; Ellsworth, David; Niinemets, Ülo; Ordonez, Alejandro; Reich, Peter B; Santiago, Louis SAim The influence of soil properties on photosynthetic traits in higher plants is poorly quantified in comparison with that of climate. We address this situation by quantifying the unique and joint contributions to global leaf-trait variation from soils and climate. Location Terrestrial ecosystems world-wide. Methods Using a trait dataset comprising 1509 species from 288 sites, with climate and soil data derived from global datasets, we quantified the effects of 20 soil and 26 climate variables on light-saturated photosynthetic rate (Aarea), stomatal conductance (gs), leaf nitrogen and phosphorus (Narea and Parea) and specific leaf area (SLA) using mixed regression models and multivariate analyses. Results Soil variables were stronger predictors of leaf traits than climatic variables, except for SLA. On average, Narea, Parea and Aarea increased and SLA decreased with increasing soil pH and with increasing site aridity. gs declined and Parea increased with soil available P (Pavail). Narea was unrelated to total soil N. Joint effects of soil and climate dominated over their unique effects on Narea and Parea, while unique effects of soils dominated for Aarea and gs. Path analysis indicated that variation in Aarea reflected the combined independent influences of Narea and gs, the former promoted by high pH and aridity and the latter by low Pavail. Main conclusions Three environmental variables were key for explaining variation in leaf traits: soil pH and Pavail, and the climatic moisture index (the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration). Although the reliability of global soil datasets lags behind that of climate datasets, our results nonetheless provide compelling evidence that both can be jointly used in broad-scale analyses, and that effects uniquely attributable to soil properties are important determinants of leaf photosynthetic traits and rates. A significant future challenge is to better disentangle the covarying physiological, ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that underpin trait–environment relationships.Item Why are non-photosynthetic tissues generally 13C enriched compared with leaves in C3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses(CSIRO, 2009) Cernusak, Lucas A; Tcherkez, Guillaume; Keitel, Claudia; Cornwell, William K; Santiago, Louis S; Knohl, Alexander; Barbour, Margaret M; Williams, David G; Reich, Peter B; Ellsworth, David S; Dawson, Todd E; Griffiths, Howard G; Farquhar, Graham D; Wright, Ian JNon-photosynthetic, or heterotrophic, tissues in C3 plants tend to be enriched in 13C compared with the leaves that supply them with photosynthate. This isotopic pattern has been observed for woody stems, roots, seeds and fruits, emerging leaves, and parasitic plants incapable of net CO2 fixation. Unlike in C3 plants, roots of herbaceous C4 plants are generally not 13C-enriched compared with leaves. We review six hypotheses aimed at explaining this isotopic pattern in C3 plants: (1) variation in biochemical composition of heterotrophic tissues compared with leaves; (2) seasonal separation of growth of leaves and heterotrophic tissues, with corresponding variation in photosynthetic discrimination against 13C; (3) differential use of day v. night sucrose between leaves and sink tissues, with day sucrose being relatively 13C-depleted and night sucrose 13C-enriched; (4) isotopic fractionation during dark respiration; (5) carbon fixation by PEP carboxylase; and (6) developmental variation in photosynthetic discrimination against 13C during leaf expansion. Although hypotheses (1) and (2) may contribute to the general pattern, they cannot explain all observations. Some evidence exists in support of hypotheses (3) through to (6), although for hypothesis (6) it is largely circumstantial. Hypothesis (3) provides a promising avenue for future research. Direct tests of these hypotheses should be carried out to provide insight into the mechanisms causing within-plant variation in carbon isotope composition.