Factors determining the midday depression of photosynthesis in trees under monsoon climate

Abstract Field studies of gas exchange of Populus deltoides, Prosopis juliflora and Acacia auriculiformis showed large diurnal changes in net photosynthesis (A) and stomatal conductance (gs) during autumn. P. deltoides and P. juliflora undergo pronounced midday depression in A and gs while A. auriculiformis showed a one-peak response. Several factors indicative of photosynthetic performance were found to be reversibly affected during afternoon decline. These include (i) decrease in initial slope of the CO2 response curve (carboxylation efficiency), (ii) substantial increase in CO2 compensation point and (iii) decrease in overall quantum yield of photosystem II. The phenomenon can be duplicated in potted plants by simulating a typical daily pattern of PPFD and VPD. It is found that high VPD induces significant decline in A and gs at moderate temperature and saturating PPFD (800 μmol m–2 s–1) whereas these parameters are only marginally affected at high PPFD and low VPD. Fluorescence data show that the tree species under study have a high capacity for safe dissipation of excessive excitation energy. The activation of photorespiration, as evident from an increase in CO2 compensation point, maintains constant internal CO2 concentration (Ci) which may aid in minimizing photoinhibition during stomatal closure at midday. In case of P. deltoides and P. juliflora the stomata seem to be quite sensitive to the changes in humidity whereas this does not appear to be essential in case of A. auriculiformis because of its phyllode structure that endows it with mechanisms for conserving water without undergoing large-scale stomatal changes.

[1]  John L. Monteith,et al.  A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity , 1995 .

[2]  Stephen B. Powles,et al.  Photoinhibition of Photosynthesis Induced by Visible Light , 1984 .

[3]  N. Baker,et al.  Photoinhibition of photosynthesis , 1994 .

[4]  J. Tenhunen,et al.  Gas exchange studies in two Portuguese grapevine cultivars , 1987 .

[5]  I. Terashima,et al.  Comparisons of photosynthesis and photoinhibition in the CAM vine Hoya australis and several C3 vines growing on the coast of eastern Australia , 1988 .

[6]  J. Pereira,et al.  Afternoon Depression In Photosynthesis in Grapevine Leaves—Evidence for a High Light Stress Effect , 1990 .

[7]  N. Breda,et al.  Photosynthesis of oak trees [Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.] during drought under field conditions: diurnal course of net CO2 assimilation and photochemical efficiency of photosystem II , 1992 .

[8]  D. F. Parkhurst,et al.  Stomatal responses to humidity in air and helox , 1991 .

[9]  A. E. Hall,et al.  Stomatal Responses, Water Loss and CO2 Assimilation Rates of Plants in Contrasting Environments , 1982 .

[10]  J. Azcon-bieto The Control of Photosynthetic Gas Exchange by Assimilate Accumulation in Wheat , 1986 .

[11]  C. Foyer FEEDBACK INHIBITION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS THROUGH SOURCE-SINK REGULATION IN LEAVES , 1988 .

[12]  I. R. Cowan Stomatal Behaviour and Environment , 1978 .

[13]  J. Norman,et al.  CO2 response curves can be measured with a field-portable closed-loop photosynthesis system , 1989 .