ArticleAnnals of botany2018
CO2 and O2 dynamics in leaves of aquatic plants with C3 or CAM photosynthesis - application of a novel CO2 microsensor.
Article in Annals of botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing our understanding of photosynthesis: discoveries and insights from aquatic plants.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2027Review
- Article
- The role of ethylene in metabolic acclimations to low oxygen.The New phytologist · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Leaf tissue CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) shows contrasting dynamics over a diurnal cycle in C3 and Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) plants. However, simultaneous and continuous monitoring of pCO2 and pO2 in C3 and CAM plants under the same conditions was lacking. Our aim was to use a new CO2 microsensor and an existing O2 microsensor for non-destructive measurements of leaf pCO2 and pO2 dynamics to compare a C3 and a CAM plant in an aquatic environment. Methods: A new amperometric CO2 microsensor and an O2 microsensor elucidated with high temporal resolution the dynamics in leaf pCO2 and pO2 during light-dark cycles for C3Lobelia dortmanna and CAM Littorella uniflora aquatic plants. Underwater photosynthesis, dark respiration, tissue malate concentrations and sediment CO2 and O2 were also measured. Key Results: During the dark period, for the C3 plant, pCO2 increased to approx. 3.5 kPa, whereas for the CAM plant CO2 was mostly below 0.05 kPa owing to CO2 sequestration into malate. Upon darkness, the CAM plant had an initial peak in pCO2 (approx. 0.16 kPa) which then declined to a quasi-steady state for several hours and then pCO2 increased towards the end of the dark period. The C3 plant became severely hypoxic late in the dark period, whereas the CAM plant with greater cuticle permeability did not. Upon illumination, leaf pCO2 declined and pO2 increased, although aspects of these dynamics also differed between the two plants. Conclusions: The continuous measurements of pCO2 and pO2 highlighted the contrasting tissue gas compositions in submerged C3 and CAM plants. The CAM leaf pCO2 dynamics indicate an initial lag in CO2 sequestration to malate, which after several hours of malate synthesis then slows. Like the use of O2 microsensors to resolve questions related to plant aeration, deployment of the new CO2 microsensor will benefit plant ecophysiology research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.