Why do genotypes of Picea glauca differ in their growth response to elevated CO₂?

Meta-analyses reveal that fast-growing species have a greater growth response to elevated CO(2) than slow-growing species. It is unknown whether this is a direct response or whether inter-specific differences in growth are simply correlated with other physiological or morphological differences among...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Tree physiology 2011-01, Vol.31 (1), p.16-21
Main Authors: Zhang, Junyan, Mycroft, Erin E, Adams, Greg, Reekie, Ed
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomass
Carbon Dioxide - metabolism
Carbon Dioxide - pharmacology
Environment, Controlled
Genetic Variation
Genotype
Photosynthesis - drug effects
Photosynthesis - physiology
Picea - drug effects
Picea - genetics
Picea - growth & development
Picea - physiology
Plant Somatic Embryogenesis Techniques
Random Allocation
Seedlings - drug effects
Seedlings - growth & development
Seedlings - physiology
Species Specificity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Meta-analyses reveal that fast-growing species have a greater growth response to elevated CO(2) than slow-growing species. It is unknown whether this is a direct response or whether inter-specific differences in growth are simply correlated with other physiological or morphological differences among species that affect the growth response to CO(2). Here we use intra-specific variation in Picea glauca to examine the mechanistic basis for this relationship. Relative growth rate (RGR) of 29 genotypes grown at ambient (370 µl l(-1)) or elevated (740 µl 1(-1)) CO(2) was measured. Physiological and morphological traits describing differences in allocation, canopy structure, stomatal function and photosynthesis were determined. Most variation in RGR (74%) was explained by traits associated with canopy structure. Although there was a strong correlation between RGR(740) and RGR(370), we found no evidence that genotypes that grew fast at ambient CO(2) had a greater relative growth response to CO(2). Given that the pattern found at the intra-specific level differed from that reported at the inter-specific level, our results suggest that RGR per se does not affect the growth response to CO(2). Rather, the CO(2) growth response is determined by traits that may or may not be correlated with RGR.
ISSN:0829-318X
1758-4469
DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpq097