Search

Background and Aims The success of using bent shoots in cut-rose (Rosa hybrida) production to improve flower shoot quality has been attributed to bent shoots capturing more light and thus providing more assimilates for flower shoot growth. We aimed at quantifying this contribution of photosynthesis by bent shoots to flower shoot growth. Methods Rose plants were grown with four upright flower shoots and with no, one or three bent shoots per plant. Plant architectural traits, leaf photosynthetic parameters and organ dry weight were measured. A functional–structural plant (FSP) model of rose was used to calculate photosynthesis of upright shoots and bent shoots separately, taking into account the heterogeneous canopy structure of these plants. Key Results Bent shoots contributed to 43–53 % of total assimilated CO2 by the plant. Plant photosynthesis increased by 73 and 117 % in plants with, respectively, one and three bent shoots compared with plants without bent shoots. Upright shoot photosynthesis was not significantly affected by the presence of bent shoots. However, upright shoot dry weight increased by 35 and 59 % in plants with, respectively, one and three bent shoots compared with plants without bent shoots. The increased upright shoot dry weight was entirely due to the contribution of extra photosynthesis by bent shoots, as this was the only source that could induce differences in upright shoot growth apart from their own photosynthesis. At least 47–51 % of the photosynthesis by bent shoots was translocated to upright shoots to support their biomass increase. Conclusions Based on model simulations, we conclude that the positive effect of shoot bending on flower shoot growth and quality in cut-rose production system can almost entirely be attributed to assimilate supply from bent shoots. FSP modelling is a useful tool to quantify the contributions of photosynthesis by different parts of heterogeneous canopies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Shading by an overhead canopy (i.e. canopy shading) entails simultaneous changes in both photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and red to far-red ratio (R:FR). As plant responses to PAR (e.g. changes in leaf photosynthesis) are different from responses to R:FR (e.g. changes in plant architecture), and these responses occur at both organ and plant levels, understanding plant photosynthesis responses to canopy shading needs separate analysis of responses to reductions in PAR and R:FR at different levels. Methods In a glasshouse experiment we subjected plants of woody perennial rose (Rosa hybrida) to different light treatments, and so separately quantified the effects of reductions in PAR and R:FR on leaf photosynthetic traits and plant architectural traits. Using a functional–structural plant model, we separately quantified the effects of responses in these traits on plant photosynthesis, and evaluated the relative importance of changes of individual traits for plant photosynthesis under mild and heavy shading caused by virtual overhead canopies. Key Results Model simulations showed that the individual trait responses to canopy shading could have positive and negative effects on plant photosynthesis. Under mild canopy shading, trait responses to reduced R:FR on photosynthesis were generally negative and with a larger magnitude than effects of responses to reduced PAR. Conversely, under heavy canopy shading, the positive effects of trait responses to reduced PAR became dominant. The combined effects of low-R:FR responses and low-PAR responses on plant photosynthesis were not equal to the sum of the separate effects, indicating interactions between individual trait responses. Conclusions Our simulation results indicate that under canopy shading, the relative importance of plant responses to PAR and R:FR for plant photosynthesis changes with shade levels. This suggests that the adaptive significance of plant plasticity responses to one shading factor depends on plant responses to the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Plants depend on photosynthesis for growth. In nature, factors such as temperature, humidity, CO2 partial pressure, and spectrum and intensity of irradiance often fluctuate. Whereas irradiance intensity is most influential and has been studied in detail, understanding of interactions with other factors is lacking. Methods We tested how photosynthetic induction after dark-light transitions was affected by CO2 partial pressure (20, 40, 80 Pa), leaf temperatures (15·5, 22·8, 30·5 °C), leaf-to-air vapour pressure deficits (VPDleaf-air; 0·5, 0·8, 1·6, 2·3 kPa) and blue irradiance (0-20 %) in tomato leaves (Solanum lycopersicum). Key Results Rates of photosynthetic induction strongly increased with CO2partial pressure, due to increased apparent Rubisco activation rates and reduced diffusional limitations. High leaf temperature produced slightly higher induction rates, and increased intrinsic water use efficiency and diffusional limitation. High VPDleaf-air slowed down induction rates and apparent Rubisco activation and (at 2·3 kPa) induced damped stomatal oscillations. Blue irradiance had no effect. Slower apparent Rubisco activation in elevated VPDleaf-air may be explained by low leaf internal CO2partial pressure at the beginning of induction. Conclusions The environmental factors CO2 partial pressure, temperature and VPDleaf-air had significant impacts on rates of photosynthetic induction, as well as on underlying diffusional, carboxylation and electron transport processes. Furthermore, maximizing Rubisco activation rates would increase photosynthesis by at most 6-8 % in ambient CO2 partial pressure (across temperatures and humidities), while maximizing rates of stomatal opening would increase photosynthesis by at most 1-3 %. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Long-term exposure over several days to Far-Red (FR) increases leaf expansion, while short-term exposure (minutes) may enhance the PSII operating efficiency (ϕPSII). The interaction between these responses at different time scales, and their impact on photosynthesis at whole-plant level is not well understood. Our study aimed to assess the effects of FR in an irradiance mimicking the spectrum of sunlight (referred to as artificial solar irradiance) both in the long and short-term, on whole-plant CO2 assimilation rates and in leaves at different positions in the plant., Methods: Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants were grown under artificial solar irradiance conditions with either a severely reduced or normal fraction of FR(SUN(FR-) vs. SUN). To elucidate the interplay between the growth light treatment and the short-term reduction of FR, we investigated this interaction at both the whole-plant and leaf level. At whole-plant level, CO2 assimilation rates were assessed under artificial solar irradiance with a normal and a reduced fraction of FR. At the leaf level, the effects of removal and presence of FR (0FR and 60FR) during transition from high to low light on CO2 assimilation rates and chlorophyll fluorescence were evaluated in upper and lower leaves., Key Results: SUN(FR-) plants had lower leaf area, shorter stems, and darker leaves than SUN plants. While reducing FR during growth did not affect whole-plant photosynthesis under high light intensity, it had a negative impact at low light intensity. Short-term FR removal reduced both plant and leaf CO2 assimilation rates, but only at low light intensity and irrespective of the growth light treatment and leaf position. Interestingly, the kinetics of ϕPSII from high to low light were accelerated by 60FR, with a larger effect in lower leaves of SUN than in SUN(FR-) plants., Conclusions: Growing plants with a reduced amount of FR light lowers whole-plant CO2 assimilation rates at low light intensity through reduced leaf area, despite maintaining similar leaf-level CO2 assimilation to leaves grown with a normal amount of FR. The short-term removal of FR brings about significant but marginal reductions in photosynthetic efficiency at the leaf level, regardless of the long-term growth light treatment., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.)