SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Beerling DJ, McElwain JC, Osborne CP. 1998. Stomatal responses of the ‘living fossil’Ginko biloba L. to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 16031607.
  • Bounuoa L, Collatz GJ, Sellers PJ, Randall DA, Dazlich DA, Los SO, Berry JA, Fung I, Tucker CJ, Field CB, Jensen TG. 1999. Interactions between vegetation and climate: radiative and physiological effects of doubled atmospheric CO2. Journal of Climate 12: 309324.
  • Bunce JA. 2001. Direct and acclamatory responses of stomatal conductance to elevated carbon dioxide in four herbaceous crop species in the field. Global Change Biology 7: 323331.
  • Ceulemans R, Vanpraet L, Jiang XN. 1995. Effects of CO2 enrichment, leaf position and clone on stomatal index and epidermal-cell density in Poplar (Populus). New Phytologist 131: 99107.
  • Curtis PS, Wang X. 1998. A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 on woody plant mass, form and physiology. Oecologia 113: 299313.
  • Data Desk. 1997. Data Desk, Version 5.0. Ithaca, NY, USA: Data Description, Inc.
  • Dixon M, Le Thiec D, Garrec JP. 1995. The growth and gas exchange response of soil-planted Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.) and red oak (Quercus rubra L.) exposed to elevated CO2 and to naturally occurring drought. New Phytologist 129: 265273.
  • Drake BG, Gonzalez-Meler MA, Long SP. 1997. More efficient plants: a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2. Annual Review Plant Physiology Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609639.
  • Ellsworth DS. 1999. CO2 enrichment in a maturing pine forest: are CO2 exchange and water status in the canopy affected? Plant, Cell & Environment 22: 461472.
  • Field CB, Jackson RB, Mooney HA. 1995. Stomatal responses to increased CO2: implications from the plant to global scale. Plant, Cell & Environment 18: 12141225.
  • Givnish TJ. 1988. Adaptation to sun and shade: a whole-plant perspective. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 15: 6392.
  • Gunderson CA, Norby RJ, Wullschleger SD. 1993. Foliar gas exchange responses of two deciduous hardwoods during 3 years of growth in elevated CO2: no loss of photosynthetic enhancement. Plant, Cell & Environment 16: 797807.
  • Gunderson CA, Sholtis JD, Wullschleger SD, Tissue DT, Hanson PJ, Norby RJ. 2002. Environmental and stomatal control of photosynthetic enhancement in the canopy of a sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) plantation during three years of CO2 enrichment. Plant, Cell & Environment 25: 379393.
  • Heath J, Kerstiens G. 1997. Effects of elevated CO2 on leaf gas exchange in beech and oak at two levels of nutrient supply: consequences for the sensitivity to drought in beech. Plant, Cell & Environment 20: 5767.
  • Herrick JD, Thomas RB. 1999. Effects of enrichment on the photosynthetic light response of sun and shade leaves of canopy sweetgum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) in a forest ecosystem. Tree Physiology 19: 779786.
  • Herrick JD, Thomas RB. 2001. No photosynthetic down-regulation in sweetgum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua L.) after three years of CO2 enrichment at the Duke Forest FACE experiment. Plant, Cell & Environment 24: 5364.
  • Herrick JD, Thomas RB. 2003. Leaf senescence and late-season net photosynthesis of sun and shade leaves of overstory sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) grown in elevated carbon dioxide concentration. Tree Physiology 23: 108118.
  • Jones HG. 1985. Partitioning stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to photosynthesis. Plant, Cell & Environment 8: 95104.
  • Kurschner WM. 1997. The anatomical diversity of recent and fossil leaves of the durmast oak (Quercus petraea Lieblein/Q. pseudocastanea Goeppert): implications for their use as biosensors of palaeoatmospheric CO2 levels. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 96: –30.
  • Lodge RJ, Dijkstra P, Drake BG, Morison JIL. 2001. Stomatal acclimation to increased CO2 concentration in a Florida scrub oak species, Quercus myrtifolia Willd. Plant, Cell & Environment 24: 7788.
  • Maherali H, Reid CD, Polley HW, Johnson HB, Jackson RB. 2002. Stomatal acclimation over a subambient to elevated CO2 gradient in a C3/C4 grassland. Plant, Cell & Environment 25: 557566.
  • Maherali H, Johnson HB, Jackson RB. 2003. Stomatal sensitivity to vapor pressure difference over a subambient to elevated CO2 gradient in a C3/C4 grassland. Plant, Cell & Environment 26: 12971306.
  • Medlyn BE, Barton CVM, Broadmeadow MSJ, Ceulemans R, De Angelis P, Forstreuter M, Freeman M, Jackson SB, Kellomaki S, Laitat E, Rey A, Robertz P, Sigurdsson BD, Strassmeyer J, Wang K, Curtis PS, Jarvis PG. 2001. Stomatal conductance of forest species after long-term exposure to elevated to CO2 concentration: a synthesis. New Phytologist 149: 247264.
  • Morison JIL. 1987. Intercellular CO2 concentration and stomatal response to CO2. In: ZeigerE, CowanIR, FarquharGD, eds. Stomatal Function. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press, 229251.
  • Norby RJ, Sholtis JD, Gunderson CA, Jawdy SS. 2003. Leaf dynamics of a deciduous forest canopy: no response to elevated CO2. Oecologia 136: 574584.
  • Oosting HJ. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of piedmont, North Carolina. American Midland Naturalist 28: –126.
  • Rind D, Suozzo R, Balachandran NK. 1990. Climate change and the middle atmosphere: the doubled CO2 climate. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 47: 475494.
  • Sage RF. 1994. Acclimation of photosynthesis to increasing atmospheric CO2: the gas exchange perspective. Photosynthesis Research 39: 351368.
  • Salisbury EJ. 1927. On the causes and ecological significance of stomatal frequency, with special reference to woodland flora. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 216: –65.
  • Santrucek J, Sage RF. 1996. Acclimation of stomatal conductance to a CO2-enriched atmosphere and elevated temperature in Chenopodium album. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 23: 467478.
  • Schäfer KVR, Oren R, Lai C, Katul GG. 2002. Hydrologic balance in an intact temperate forest ecosystem under ambient and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration. Global Change Biology 8: 895911.
  • Sellers PJ, Bounoua L, Collaz GJ, Randall DA, Dazlich DA, Los SO, Berry JA, Fung I, Tucker CJ, Field CB, Jensen TG. 1996. Comparison of radiative and physiological effects of doubled atmospheric CO2 on climate. Science 271: 14021406.
  • Sokal AK, Rolf FJ. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biology research. New York, NY, USA: W. H. Freeman.
  • Tissue DT, Griffin KL, Thomas RB, Strain BR. 1995. Effects of low and elevated CO2 on C3 and C4 annuals. II. Photosynthesis and leaf biochemistry. Oecologia 101: 2128.
  • Whitehead D. 1998. Regulation of stomatal conductance and transpiration in forest canopies. Tree Physiology 18: 633644.
  • Woodward FI, Bazzaz FA. 1987. The responses of stomatal density to CO2 partial-pressure. Journal of Experimental Botany 39: 17711781.
  • Wullschleger SD, Gunderson CA, Hanson PJ, Wilson KB, Norby RJ. 2002. Sensitivity of stomatal and canopy conductance to elevated CO2 concentration – interacting variables and perspectives of scale. New Phytologist 153: 485496.