Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35947983›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2022

Cost-benefit analysis of mesophyll conductance: diversities of anatomical, biochemical and environmental determinants.

Yusuke Mizokami, Riichi Oguchi, Daisuke Sugiura, Wataru Yamori, Ko Noguchi, Ichiro Terashima

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Leaf phenology determines the response of poplar genotypes to OThe Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. COPlanta · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yusuke MizokamiDepartment of Life Science, Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0392, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-0687-3043
Riichi OguchiDepartment of Biological Sciences, School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1845-1558
Daisuke SugiuraGraduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Furo, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3003-9171
Wataru YamoriGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Science, Institute for Sustainable Agri-ecosystem, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1, Midoricho, Nishitokyo, Tokyo 188-0002, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7215-4736
Ko NoguchiDepartment of Life Science, Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0392, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3588-3643
Ichiro TerashimaDepartment of Biological Sciences, School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7680-9867

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlants invest photosynthates in construction and maintenance of their structures and functions. Such investments are considered costs. These costs are recovered by the CO2 assimilation rate (A) in the leaves, and thus A is regarded as the immediate, short-term benefit. In photosynthesizing leaves, CO2 diffusion from the air to the carboxylation site is hindered by several structural and biochemical barriers. CO2 diffusion from the intercellular air space to the chloroplast stroma is obstructed by the mesophyll resistance. The inverses is the mesophyll conductance (gm). Whether various plants realize an optimal gm, and how much investment is needed for a relevant gm, remain unsolved. SCOPE: This review examines relationships among leaf construction costs (CC), leaf maintenance costs (MC) and gm in various plants under diverse growth conditions. Through a literature survey, we demonstrate a strong linear relationship between leaf mass per area (LMA) and leaf CC. The overall correlation of CC vs. gm across plant phylogenetic groups is weak, but significant trends are evident within specific groups and/or environments. Investment in CC is necessary for an increase in LMA and mesophyll cell surface area (Smes). This allows the leaf to accommodate more chloroplasts, thus increasing A. However, increases in LMA and/or Smes often accompany other changes, such as cell wall thickening, which diminishes gm. Such factors that make the correlations of CC and gm elusive are identified.

conclusionsFor evaluation of the contribution of gm to recover CC, leaf life span is the key factor. The estimation of MC in relation to gm, especially in terms of costs required to regulate aquaporins, could be essential for efficient control of gm over the short term. Over the long term, costs are mainly reflected in CC, while benefits also include ultimate fitness attributes in terms of integrated carbon gain over the life of a leaf, plant survival and reproductive output.

Indexed as

Carbon DioxidePhotosynthesisCarbonCost-Benefit AnalysisMesophyll CellsPhylogenyPlant LeavesCarbonCarbon DioxideAquaporincooporinleaf construction costleaf maintenance costleaf mass per areamesophyll conductance

Identifiers

PMID35947983
PMCPMC9487971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.