The rate of N uptake of crops is highly variable during crop development and between years and sites. However, under ample soil N availability, crop N accumulation is highly related to crop growth rate and to biomass accumulation. Critical N concentration has been defined as the minimum N concentration which allows maximum growth rate. Critical N concentration declines during crop growth. The relationship between critical N concentration and biomass accumulation over the growth period of a crop is broadly similar within major C(3) and C(4) cultivated species. Therefore, the critical N concentration concept is widely used in agronomy as the basis of the diagnosis of crop N status, and allows discrimination between situations of sub-optimal and supra-optimal N supply. The relationship between N and biomass accumulation in crops, relies on the interregulation of multiple crop physiological processes. Among these processes, N uptake, crop C assimilation and thus growth rate, and C and N allocation between organs and between plants, play a particular role. Under sub-optimal N supply, N uptake of the crop depends on soil mineral N availability and distribution, and on root distribution. Under ample N supply, N uptake largely depends on growth rate via internal plant regulation. Carbon assimilation of the crop is related to crop N through the distribution of N between mature leaves with consequences for leaf and canopy photosynthesis. However, although less commonly emphasized, carbon assimilation of the crop also depends on crop N through leaf area development. Therefore, crop growth rate fundamentally relies on the balance of N allocation between growing and mature leaves. Nitrogen uptake and distribution also depends on C allocation between organs and N composition of these organs. Within shoots, allocation of C to stems generally increases in relation to C allocation to the leaves over the crop growth period. Allocation of C and N between shoots and roots also changes to a large extent in relation to soil N and/or crop N. These alterations in C and N allocation between plant organs have implications, together with soil availability and carbon assimilation, on N uptake and distribution in crops. Therefore, N uptake and distribution in plants and crops involves many aspects of growth and development. Regulation of nitrogen assimilation needs to be considered in the context of these interregulatory processes.

No abstract

No abstract

Photosynthetic capacity is one of the most sensitive parameters in vegetation models and its relationship to leaf nitrogen content links the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Process understanding for reliably predicting photosynthetic capacity is still missing. To advance this understanding we have tested across C3 plant species the coordination hypothesis, which assumes nitrogen allocation to photosynthetic processes such that photosynthesis tends to be co-limited by ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) carboxylation and regeneration. The coordination hypothesis yields an analytical solution to predict photosynthetic capacity and calculate area-based leaf nitrogen content (N a). The resulting model linking leaf photosynthesis, stomata conductance and nitrogen investment provides testable hypotheses about the physiological regulation of these processes. Based on a dataset of 293 observations for 31 species grown under a range of environmental conditions, we confirm the coordination hypothesis: under mean environmental conditions experienced by leaves during the preceding month, RuBP carboxylation equals RuBP regeneration. We identify three key parameters for photosynthetic coordination: specific leaf area and two photosynthetic traits (k3, which modulates N investment and is the ratio of RuBP carboxylation/oxygenation capacity () to leaf photosynthetic N content (N pa); and J fac, which modulates photosynthesis for a given k 3 and is the ratio of RuBP regeneration capacity (J max) to). With species-specific parameter values of SLA, k 3 and J fac, our leaf photosynthesis coordination model accounts for 93% of the total variance in Na across species and environmental conditions. A calibration by plant functional type of k 3 and J fac still leads to accurate model prediction of N a, while SLA calibration is essentially required at species level. Observed variations in k3 and Jfac are partly explained by environmental and phylogenetic constraints, while SLA variation is partly explained by phylogeny. These results open a new avenue for predicting photosynthetic capacity and leaf nitrogen content in vegetation models.

Sward structure affects herbage growth, pasture species dynamics, and herbage utilization. Defoliation management has a major impact on sward structure. In particular, tiller size-tiller density compensations allow for the maintenance of herbage growth. Tiller size and tiller density are determined by several major morphogenetical components. Defoliation affects these morphogenetical components, depending on its frequency and its intensity, through several direct and indirect physiological and environmental processes. Due to the implications of leaf area removal, defoliation has a direct effect on the mobilization of C and N reserves and their supply to growing leaves. In addition, defoliation has an indirect effect on leaf and tiller morphogenesis, due to its impact on the light environment within the canopy as well as plant responses to light signals (blue light, red far red ratio). Defoliation may also in some cases have a direct negative effect on leaf growth by damaging leaf meristems. Understanding the respective role of these various physiological and environmental processes requires studies where defoliation, photosynthetic active radiation and light signals are manipulated independently. Past and recent knowledge on these direct and indirect effects of defoliation on plant morphogenesis are discussed, leading to an overall integrated view of physiological and environmental processes that lead to adaptations of sward structure in response to defoliation management. Major consequences for herbage utilization efficiency are presented. OPEN ACCESSAgriculture 2015, 5 1147