# Light inhibition of leaf respiration in field-grown *Eucalyptus saligna* in whole-tree chambers under elevated atmospheric CO_{2} and summer drought

Version of Record online: 14 DEC 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02465.x

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Additional Information

#### How to Cite

CROUS, K. Y., ZARAGOZA-CASTELLS, J., ELLSWORTH, D. S., DUURSMA, R. A., LÖW, M., TISSUE, D. T. and ATKIN, O. K. (2012), Light inhibition of leaf respiration in field-grown *Eucalyptus saligna* in whole-tree chambers under elevated atmospheric CO_{2} and summer drought. Plant, Cell & Environment, 35: 966–981. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02465.x

#### Publication History

- Issue online: 4 APR 2012
- Version of Record online: 14 DEC 2011
- Accepted manuscript online: 17 NOV 2011 03:54AM EST
- Received 10 May 2011; received in revised form 28 October 2011; accepted for publication 6 November 2011

- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Supporting Information
- Cited By

**Figure S1.** Representative plot of net CO_{2} assimilation (*A*_{net}, *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}) versus irradiance (*µ*mol photons m^{−2} s^{−1}) to illustrate the Kok effect and related calculations. Data are from a well-watered, ambient 'CO_{2}'-grown replicate plant measured in February 2009 of the experiment. Solid symbols show measured rates of *A*_{net} over the 0–100 *µ*mol photons m^{−2} s^{−1} range, with rates of leaf respiration in darkness (*R*_{dark} = 1.17 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}) shown. The break from linearity at irradiances below 40 *µ*mol photons m^{−2} s^{−1} (dotted line) is shown, with a linear regression fitted (r^{2} = 0.992 for this replicate) to values between 40 and 100 *µ*mol photons m^{−2} s^{−1} to estimate apparent rates of leaf *R* in the light (*R*_{light} ‘apparent’, ◊ = 0.21 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}) at the *y*-axis intercept. Actual rates of *R*_{light} (□ = 0.22 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}) that take into account changes in internal CO_{2} concentration (*c*_{i}) that occur as irradiance declined (Kirschbaum & Farquhar 1987) are also shown 'assuming infinite internal conductance (*g*_{i})'. For this replicate, measurements of *A*_{net} were also made under saturating irradiance (1800 *µ*mol photons m^{−2} s^{−1}), yielding rates of *A*_{sat} of 21.96 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}, with the underlying rates of carboxylation (*V*_{c}) and oxygenation (*V*_{o}) being 26.32 and 8.28 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}, respectively (calculated using Eqns 2 and 3 in the main text). At an irradiance of 100 *µ*mol photons m^{−2} s^{−1}, the corresponding values were: *A*_{100} = 4.24 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}, *V*_{c100} = 5.08 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}, and *V*_{o100} = 1.22 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}. Finally, for this replicate, actual *R*_{light} values when assuming *g*_{i} = 0.012*A*_{sat} were 0.26 *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1} (Eqn 5 in main text). For parameters above, *Γ** was assumed to be 36.9 and 38.6 *µ*L L^{−1} when assuming *C*_{i} and *C*_{c}, respectively (Von Caemmerer *et al*. 1994).

**Figure S2.** Rates of leaf respiration in the light (*R*_{light}, *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}) calculated assuming that internal conductance (*g*_{i}) is infinite plotted against the corresponding *R*_{light} values assuming an ‘estimated’ *g*_{i} (*g*_{i} = 0.012*A*_{sat}; Evans & Von Caemmerer 1996). For the latter, we calculated *c*_{c} at any given irradiance according to: *c*_{c} = *c*_{i} − (*A*_{net}/*g*_{i}), with *R*_{light} then being estimated via application of the Kirschbaum & Farquhar (1987) correction procedure after replacing *c*_{i} with *c*_{c}. For these calculations, *Γ** was assumed to be 36.9 and 38.6 *µ*L L^{−1} when assuming *C*_{i} and *C*_{c}, respectively (Von Caemmerer *et al*. 1994). Data are shown for all growth 'CO_{2}' and water availability treatments, using data collected over the 4 month experimental period (December–March). Values shown are individual replicates. The dashed line shows the 1:1 relationship. See Supporting Information Table S2 for treatment averages of the ‘estimated’ *g*_{i} values and corresponding *R*_{light} values.

**Figure S3.** Rates of photosynthetic electron transport (*J*, *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1}) calculated assuming that internal conductance (*g*_{i}) is infinite plotted against the corresponding *J*-values assuming an ‘estimated’ *g*_{i} (*g*_{i} = 0.012*A*_{sat}; Evans & Von Caemmerer 1996). For the latter, we calculated *c*_{c} at any given irradiance according to: *c*_{c} = *c*_{i} − (*A*_{net}/*g*_{i}), with *J* then being estimated after replacing *c*_{i} with *c*_{c}. For these calculations, *Γ** was assumed to be 36.9 and 38.6 *µ*L L^{−1} when assuming *C*_{i} and *C*_{c}, respectively (Von Caemmerer *et al*. 1994). Data are shown for all growth 'CO_{2}' and water availability treatments, using data collected over the 4 month experimental period (December–March). Values are shown for individual replicates of *J* calculated at two irradiances (100 and 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PFFD). The dashed line shows the 1:1 relationship.

**Figure S4.** Rates of carboxylation (*V*_{c}) and oxygenation (*V*_{o}) by Rubisco (*µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1}) calculated assuming that internal conductance (*g*_{i}) is infinite plotted against the corresponding *J*-values assuming an ‘estimated’ *g*_{i} (*g*_{i} = 0.012*A*_{sat}; Evans & Von Caemmerer 1996). For the latter, we calculated *c*_{c} at any given irradiance according to: *c*_{c} = *c*_{i} − (*A*_{net}/*g*_{i}), with *J* then being estimated via application of the Kirschbaum & Farquhar (1987) correction procedure after replacing *c*_{i} with *c*_{c}. For these calculations, *Γ** was assumed to be 36.9 and 38.6 *µ*L L^{−1} when assuming *C*_{i} and *C*_{c}, respectively (Von Caemmerer *et al*. 1994). Data are shown for all growth 'CO_{2}' and water availability treatments, using data collected over the 4 month experimental period (December–March). Values are shown for individual replicates calculated at two irradiances (100 and 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PFFD). The lines show the 1:1 relationship.

**Figure S5.** Plots of rates of leaf respiration in the light (*R*_{light}) '(a) and (b)' and the ratio of *R*_{light} to that in darkness (*R*_{light}/*R*_{dark}) '(c) and (d)' against corresponding rates of photorespiration (i.e. oxygenation rate by Rubisco) at 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PPFD (*V*_{o1800}) '(a) and (c)', the carboxylation rate by Rubisco at 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PPFD (*V*_{c1800}) '(b) and (d)' in ambient (circles) and elevated (triangles) CO_{2} treatments. Open symbols represent the droughted plants and closed symbols represent the well-watered plants. The regression equation and associated statistics are summarized in Table 3. Values shown were calculated assuming infinite internal conductance (*g*_{i}). Similar plots of *R*_{light} and *R*_{light}/*R*_{dark} ratios against rates of *V*_{c} and *V*_{o} 100 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PPFD are shown in Fig. 4 (main text). Data shown are for the two months where *R*_{light} and light-saturated photosynthesis were measured on the same leaf (i.e. February and March only). In December and January, data on light-saturated photosynthesis were measured using adjacent leaves to those used for *R*_{light} measurements; consequently, only data from February and March are shown in this figure.

**Figure S6.** Comparison of linear relationships between *R*_{light} and photorespiration (i.e. oxygenation rate of Rubisco) at 100 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} (*V*_{o100}) for calculations made assuming that internal conductance (*g*_{i}) is infinite (left-hand panel) and assuming an ‘estimated’ *g*_{i} (*g*_{i} = 0.012*A*_{sat}; Evans & Von Caemmerer 1996). For the latter, we calculated *C*_{c} at any given irradiance according to: *C*_{c} = *C*_{i} − (*A*_{net}/*g*_{i}), with *R*_{light} then being estimated via application of the Kirschbaum & Farquhar (1987) correction procedure after replacing *C*_{i} with *C*_{c}. Similarly, *V*_{o100} values were calculating using *J-*values that employed *C*_{i} or *C*_{c} values. For these calculations, *Γ** was assumed to be 36.9 and 38.6 *µ*L L^{−1} when assuming *C*_{i} and *C*_{c}, respectively (Von Caemmerer *et al*. 1994). Data are shown for the four growth 'CO_{2}' and water availability treatments, using data collected over the 4 month experimental period (December–March). Values shown are individual replicates.

**Table S1.** Means ± standard error per month and per treatment (*n* = 3) of *Eucalyptus saligna* leaves for the following variables: area-based rates of leaf respiration the light (*R*_{light}) and dark (*R*_{dark}), carboxylation rates of Rubisco at 100 and 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PPFD (*V*_{c100} and *V*_{c1800}), oxygenation rates of Rubisco at 100 and 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PPFD (*V*_{o100} and *V*_{o1800}), net photosynthesis at 100 and 1800 *µ*mol m^{−2} s^{−1} PPFD (*A*_{100} and *A*_{sat}), ratios of leaf *R* (in the light and in the dark) to ‘gross’ rates of light-saturated photosynthesis (where ‘gross’ *A* = *A*_{sat} plus *R*_{light}), total soluble sugars, mass-based leaf nitrogen concentration (N), mass-based leaf phosphorus concentrations (P) and leaf mass per surface area (LMA). Note: gas exchange rates are for leaves measured in the mid-late morning at the prevailing ambient air temperature of each month.

**Table S2.** Overview of the effect of assumed internal conductance (*g*_{i}) on calculated rates of leaf *R* in the light (*R*_{light}; *µ*mol CO_{2} m^{−2} s^{−1}) for trees grown under ambient/elevated 'CO_{2}' and well-watered/droughted conditions. *R*_{light}/*R*_{light} ratios are shown in parentheses. *R*_{light} values were calculated on the assumption of an infinite internal conductance (*g*_{i}) (i.e. *C*_{i} = *C*_{c}) and ‘estimated’ *g*_{i} (i.e. *g*_{i} = 0.012*A*_{sat}) (Evans & von Caemmerer, 1996). For the latter, we calculated *C*_{c} at any given irradiance according to: *C*_{c} = *C*_{i} − (*A*_{net}/*g*_{i}), with *R*_{light} then being estimated via application of the Kirschbaum & Farquhar (1987) correction procedure after replacing *C _{i}* with

*C*

_{c}. For these calculations,

*Γ** was assumed to be 36.9 and 38.6

*µ*L L

^{−1}when assuming

*C*

_{i}and

*C*

_{c}, respectively (Von Caemmerer

*et al*. 1994). Data shown are averages over the 4 month experimental period (December–March).

**Table S3.** Results from linear regression analysis of relationships between area-based respiration and month-to-month variations in leaf temperature (*T*_{leaf}). *R*_{light} represents the non-photorespiratory respiration in illuminated leaves (assuming infinite internal conductance) and *R*_{dark} represents the mitochondrial respiration in dark-adapted leaves. See Fig. 2 in main text for treatment/monthly average data.

Filename | Format | Size | Description |
---|---|---|---|

PCE_2465_sm_FigS1-S6-TableS1-S3.pdf | 216K | Supporting info item |

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.