Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:08:06.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epiphytes and hemiepiphytes have slower photosynthetic response to lightflecks than terrestrial plants: evidence from ferns and figs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Qiang Zhang ,
Jun-Wen Chen ,
Bao-Gui Li  and
Kun-Fang Cao
Qiang Zhang*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China College of Life Science, Key Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental Science in Guangdong Higher Education, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
Jun-Wen Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China
Bao-Gui Li
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China
Kun-Fang Cao*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China
*
1Corresponding authors. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
1Corresponding authors. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Photosynthetic responses of 12 species including six fern species (Neottopteris nidus, Microsorum punctatum, Pseudodrynaria coronans, Asplenium finlaysonianum, Paraleptochilus decurrens and Tectaria fauriei) and seedlings of six fig species (Ficus curtipes, F. gibbosa, F. altissima, F. auriculata, F. oligodon and F. hookeriana) in different life forms to lightfleck were investigated, to test whether epiphytes and hemiepiphytes display a slower response to lightfleck and fast induction loss after a lightfleck compared with their terrestrial counterparts, and whether ferns display a slower response to lightfleck and slower induction loss compared to figs. The measurements of functional traits and physiological parameters were determined in a screenhouse of 4% full sunlight. Epiphytic ferns and hemiepiphytic figs had thicker leaves compared with their terrestrial counterparts. Compared with figs, ferns had thicker fronds, larger stomata with a low density, and lower stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity; ferns had lower light compensation point and dark respiration rate, conferring a positive carbon gain under low diffuse light beneath the canopy. The induction time to reach 90% maximum net photosynthetic rate (T90) upon the exposure to a saturated light varied strongly among life forms. Epiphytic ferns had slower T90 than terrestrial ferns (19.9–26.3 vs 5.9–16.3 min, respectively), and hemiepiphytic figs had slower T90 than terrestrial figs (13.1–20.4 vs 5.2–7.8 min, respectively). Compared with figs, ferns showed a slower response to lightfleck. Across ferns and figs, the induction time was negatively correlated with initial stomatal conductance. No significant difference in induction loss was found between two life forms within ferns or figs, whereas ferns had a significantly slower induction loss compared with figs. These results showed that the inherent conservative water use strategy of the epiphytes and hemiepiphytes constrain their lightfleck utilization.

Keywords

AspleniumepiphytesFicushemiepiphyteslightflecksMicrosorumNeottopterisParaleptochilusphotosynthetic inductionPseudodrynariaTectariaterrestrial life form
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , September 2009 , pp. 465 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

AASAMAA, K., SOBER, A. & RAHI, M. 2001. Leaf anatomical characteristics associated with shoot hydraulic conductance, stomatal conductance and stomatal sensitivity to changes of leaf water status in temperate deciduous trees. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28:765–774.Google Scholar
ALLEN, M. T. & PEARCY, R. W. 2000. Stomatal behavior and photosynthetic performance under dynamic light regimes in a seasonally dry tropical rain forest. Oecologia 122:470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAI, K. D., LIAO, D. B., JIANG, D. B. & CAO, K. F. 2008. Photosynthetic induction in leaves of co-occurring Fagus lucida and Castanopsis lamontii saplings grown in contrasting light environments. Trees – Structure and Function 22:449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASSMAN, J. & ZWIER, J. C. 1991. Gas exchange characteristics of Populus trichocarpa, Populus deltoids and Populus trichocarpa × trichocarpa clones. Tree Physiology 8:145–149.Google Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 1990. Vascular epiphytes. General biology and related biota. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 354 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRODRIBB, T. J. & HOLBROOK, N. M. 2004. Stomatal protection against hydraulic failure: a comparison of coexisting ferns and angiosperms. New Phytologist 162:663–670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BRODRIBB, T. J., HOLBROOK, N. M., ZWIENIECKI, M. A. & PALMA, B. 2005. Leaf hydraulic capacity in ferns, conifers and angiosperms: impacts on photosynthetic maxima. New Phytologist 165:839–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BRODRIBB, T. J., FEILD, T. S. & JORDAN, G. J. 2007. Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiology 144:1890–1898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAO, K. F. 2000. Water relations and gas exchange of tropical saplings during a prolonged drought in a Bornean heath forest, with reference to root architecture. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:101–116.Google Scholar
CARLQUIST, S. & SCHNEIDER, E. L. 2001. Vessels in ferns: structural, ecological, and evolutionary significance. American Journal of Botany 88:1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CHAZDON, R. L. 1988. Sunflecks and their importance to forest understory plants. Advance of Ecological Research 18:1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAZDON, R. L. & PEARCY, R. W. 1986a. Photosynthetic responses to light variation in rainforest species. II. Carbon gain and photosynthetic efficiency during lightflecks. Oecologia 69:524–531.Google ScholarPubMed
CHAZDON, R. L. & PEARCY, R. W. 1986b. Photosynthetic responses to light variation in rainforest species. I. Induction under constant and fluctuating light conditions. Oecologia 69:517–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GRATANI, L. & BOMBELLI, A. 2001. Differences in leaf traits among Mediterranean broad-leaved evergreen shrubs. Annales Botanici Fennici 38:15–24.Google Scholar
HIETZ, P. & BRIONES, O. 1998. Correlation between water relations and within-canopy distribution of epiphytic ferns in a Mexican cloud forest. Oecologia 114:305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOLBROOK, N. M. & PUTZ, F. E. 1996. Water relations of epiphytic and terrestrially-rooted strangler figs in a Venezuelan palm savanna. Oecologia 106:424–431.Google Scholar
KAISER, H. & KAPPEN, L. 2000. In situ observation of stomatal movements and gas exchange of Aegopodium podagraria L. in the understorey. Journal of Experimental Botany 51:1741–1749.Google Scholar
KIRSCHBAUM, M. U. F. & PEARCY, R. W. 1988. Gas exchange analysis of the relative importance of stomatal and biochemical factors in photosynthetic induction in Alocasia macrorrhiza. Plant Physiology 86:782–785.Google Scholar
KURSAR, T. A. & COLEY, P. D. 1993. Photosynthetic induction times in shade-tolerant species with long and short-lived leaves. Oecologia 93:165–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LEAKEY, A. D. B., SCHOLES, J. D. & PRESS, M. C. 2005. Physiological and ecological significance of sunflecks for dipterocarp seedlings. Journal of Experimental Botany 56:469–482.Google Scholar
LICHTENTHALER, H. K. & WELLBURN, A. R. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophyll a and b of leaf extracts different solvents. Biochemical Society Transactions 603:591–592.Google Scholar
ÖGREN, E. & SUNDIN, U. 1996. Photosynthetic response to variable light: a comparison of species from contrasting habitats. Oecologia 106:18–27.Google Scholar
PATIÑO, S., GILBERT, G. S., ZOTZ, G. & TYREE, M. T. 1999. Growth and survival of aerial roots of hemiepiphytes in a lower montane tropical moist forest in Panama. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15:651–665.Google Scholar
PEARCY, R. W. 1990. Sunflecks and photosynthesis in plant canopies. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 41:421–453.Google Scholar
PFITSCH, W. A. & PEARCY, R. W. 1989. Steady-state and dynamic photosynthetic response of Adenocaulon bicolor (Asteraceae) in its redwood habitat. Oecologia 80:471–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PONS, T. L., PEARCY, R. W. & SEEMANN, J. R. 1992. Photosynthesis in flashing light in soybean leaves in different conditions. I. Photosynthetic induction state and regulation of ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase activity. Plant, Cell and Environment 15:569–576.Google Scholar
PUTZ, F. E. & HOLBROOK, N. M. 1986. Notes on the natural history of hemiepiphytes. Selbyana 9:61–69.Google Scholar
RIJKERS, T., DE VRIES, P. J., PONS, T. L. & BONGERS, F. 2000. Photosynthetic induction in saplings of three shade-tolerant tree species: comparing understorey and gap habitats in a French Guiana rain forest. Oecologia 125:331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RODEN, J. S. & PEARCY, R. W. 1993. Photosynthetic gas exchange responses of poplars to steady-state and dynamic light environments. Oecologia 93:208–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SACK, L. & FROLE, K. 2006. Leaf structural diversity is related to hydraulic capacity in tropical rain forest trees. Ecology 87:483–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SACK, L. & HOLBROOK, N. M. 2006. Leaf hydraulics. Annual Review of Plant Biology 57:361–381.Google Scholar
TANG, Y., KOIZUMI, H., SATOH, M. & IZUMI, W. 1994. Characteristics of transient photosynthesis in Quercus serrata seedlings grown under lightfleck and constant light regimes. Oecologia 100:463–469.Google Scholar
VALLADARES, F., ALLEN, M. T. & PEARCY, R. W. 1997. Photosynthetic responses to dynamic light under field conditions in six tropical rainforest shrubs occurring along a light gradient. Oecologia 111:505–514.Google Scholar
WATKINS, J. E., RUNDEL, P. W. & CARDELUS, C. L. 2007. The influence of life form on carbon and nitrogen relationships in tropical rainforest ferns. Oecologia 153:225–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ZIPPERLEN, S. W. & PRESS, M. C. 1997. Photosynthetic induction and stomatal oscillations in relation to the light environment of two dipterocarp rain forest tree species. Journal of Ecology 85:491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZOTZ, G. & MIKONA, C. 2003. Photosynthetic induction and leaf carbon gain in the tropical understory epiphyte, Aspasia principissa. Annals of Botany 91:353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar