Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Why are non-photosynthetic tissues generally 13 C enriched compared with leaves in C 3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses

dc.contributor.authorCernusak, Lucas
dc.contributor.authorTcherkez, Guillaume
dc.contributor.authorKeitel, Claudia
dc.contributor.authorCornwell, William K
dc.contributor.authorSantiago, Louis S
dc.contributor.authorKnohl, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorBarbour, Margaret M
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, David G
dc.contributor.authorReich, Peter B
dc.contributor.authorEllsworth, David S
dc.contributor.authorDawson, Todd
dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, Howard
dc.contributor.authorWright, Ian J
dc.contributor.authorFarquhar, Graham
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-10T23:02:14Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.date.updated2016-02-24T11:53:00Z
dc.description.abstractNon-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 CO 2 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.
dc.identifier.issn1445-4408
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/61921
dc.publisherCSIRO Publishing
dc.sourceFunctional Plant Biology
dc.subjectKeywords: Fault detection; Histology; Isotopes; Sugar (sucrose); Diel cycle; Heterotrophic tissue; PEP-carboxylase; Refixation; Respiration; Tissue; biochemical composition; carbon fixation; carbon isotope; diel variation; enzyme activity; growth rate; heterotrophy Diel cycle; Heterotrophic tissue; PEP-carboxylase; Refixation; Respiration
dc.titleWhy are non-photosynthetic tissues generally 13 C enriched compared with leaves in C 3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue3
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage213
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage199
local.contributor.affiliationCernusak, Lucas A, Charles Darwin University
local.contributor.affiliationTcherkez, Guillaume, Universite Paris Sud XI (CNRS UMR 8079)
local.contributor.affiliationKeitel, Claudia, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationCornwell, William K, University of British Columbia
local.contributor.affiliationSantiago, Louis S, University of California
local.contributor.affiliationKnohl, Alexander , ETH Zurich
local.contributor.affiliationBarbour, Margaret M, Landcare Research
local.contributor.affiliationWilliams, David G, University of Wyoming
local.contributor.affiliationReich, Peter B, University of Minnesota
local.contributor.affiliationEllsworth, David S, University of Western Sydney
local.contributor.affiliationDawson, Todd, University of California
local.contributor.affiliationGriffiths, Howard, University of Cambridge
local.contributor.affiliationFarquhar, Graham, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationWright, Ian J, Macquarie University
local.contributor.authoruidKeitel, Claudia, u4143994
local.contributor.authoruidFarquhar, Graham, u7601091
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor060705 - Plant Physiology
local.identifier.absfor060203 - Ecological Physiology
local.identifier.absseo960305 - Ecosystem Adaptation to Climate Change
local.identifier.absseo960806 - Forest and Woodlands Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity
local.identifier.ariespublicationu9204316xPUB650
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4956746xPUB125
local.identifier.citationvolume36
local.identifier.doi10.1071/FP08216
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-62549128259
local.identifier.thomsonID000263763200001
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Cernusak_Why_are_non-photosynthetic_2009.pdf
Size:
481.11 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format