Chapter 2 Stomatal Responses to Climate Change

Stevens, Jim; Faralli, Michele; Wall, Shellie; Stamford, John D.; Lawson, Tracy

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64926-5_2

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 217 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stomatal conductance is determined by anatomical characteristics, including stomatal density (SD), size (guard cell length; GCL) and patterning, as well as by functional responses that alter pore aperture (Willmer & Fricker, 1996; Weyers & Lawson, 1997; Hetherington & Woodward, 2003; Casson & Hetherington, 2010; Lawson & Blatt, 2014; Matthews et al ., 2018; Faralli et al ., 2020). Stomatal density is known to vary within (Weyers & Lawson, 1997; Weyers et al ., 1997) and between species (Ticha, 1982) and is also dependent on growth conditions (Woodward, 1987; Morison & Lawson, 2007; Stevens et al ., 2021). The distribution of stomata can either be confined to one leaf surface – the abaxial surface (hypostomatous), or much less commonly, the adaxial surface (hyperstomatous) – or they can be present on both (amphistomatous; Parkhurst, 1978), which is the most conventional arrangement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stomata on the abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces contribute differently to leaf gas exchange and photosynthesis in wheat

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although stomata are typically found in greater numbers on the abaxial surface, wheat flag leaves have greater densities on the adaxial surface. We determine the impact of this less common stomatal patterning on gaseous fluxes using a novel chamber that simultaneously measures both leaf surfaces.Using a combination of differential illuminations and CO 2 concentrations at each leaf surface, we found that mesophyll cells associated with the adaxial leaf surface have a higher photosynthetic capacity than those associated with the abaxial leaf surface, which is supported by an increased stomatal conductance (driven by differences in stomatal density).When vertical gas flux at the abaxial leaf surface was blocked, no compensation by adaxial stomata was observed, suggesting each surface operates independently. Similar stomatal kinetics suggested some co-ordination between the two surfaces, but factors other than light intensity played a role in these responses.Higher photosynthetic capacity on the adaxial surface facilitates greater carbon assimilation, along with higher adaxial stomatal conductance, which would also support greater evaporative leaf cooling to maintain optimal leaf temperatures for photosynthesis. Furthermore, abaxial gas exchange contributed c. 50% to leaf photosynthesis and therefore represents an important contributor to overall leaf gas exchange.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stomata on the abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces contribute differently to leaf gas exchange and photosynthesis in wheat

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well documented that significant variation in stomatal anatomy exists between and within species, spatially within leaves ( Ticha, 1982 ; Smith et al , 1989 ; Willmer and Fricker, 1996 ; Weyers and Lawson, 1997 ; Weyers et al , 1997 ) and on different leaf surfaces ( Wall et al , 2022 ), all of which are influenced by the growth environment ( Poole et al , 1996 ; Croxdale, 2000 ; Lawson et al , 2002 ). Stomatal density is one of the most plastic traits and is affected by a great number of environmental parameters ( Matthews and Lawson, 2019 ; Stevens et al , 2021 ). Increasing growth [CO 2 ] most commonly decreases SD in the majority of plant species investigated ( Woodward, 1987 ), but not all ( Lodge et al , 2001 ), and the degree of change is not the same even within cultivars of the same species ( Dusenge et al , 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…g s is determined by anatomical features as well as functional aspects of the guard cells, both of which are influenced by growth [CO 2 ] (and temperature) ( Woodward, 1987 ; Matthews and Lawson, 2019 ; Stevens et al , 2021 ). Both stomatal anatomy and behavior are modified by elevated [CO 2 ], with most species responding by decreasing stomatal density ( Woodward, 1987 ; Poole et al , 1996 ) and reducing aperture (see review by Stevens et al , 2021 ). Reducing stomatal aperture under elevated [CO 2 ] greatly increases intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi; A / g s ) with potential benefits for plant growth ( Leakey et al , 2009 ; Sreeharsha et al , 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, slow stomatal opening limits the CO 2 assimilation rate, reducing the speed of photosynthetic induction ( Long et al , 2022 ), whilst slow closure erodes WUEi ( Lawson and Blatt, 2014 ; McAusland et al , 2016 ; Qu et al , 2016 , 2020 ; Lawson and Vialet-Chabrand, 2019 ). The rapidity of stomatal responses to changing climatic conditions is also critically important for maintaining optimal leaf temperature ( Matthews and Lawson, 2019 ; Stevens et al 2021 ) and for photosynthesis and plant productivity ( Moore et al , 2021 ). Dynamic responses have been linked to both morphological and physiological variation in stomata ( Drake et al , 2013 ; Lawson and Blatt, 2014 ; Zhang et al , 2019 ); however, few studies have explored the impact of changing climate conditions such as growth [CO 2 ] on morphophysiological characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of growth at elevated [CO2] on stomatal anatomy and behavior differs between wheat species and cultivars

Wall

Cockram

Vialet-Chabrand

et al. 2023

Journal of Experimental Botany

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of plants to respond to changes in the environment is crucial to their survival and reproductive success. The impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations (a[CO2]), mediated by behavioral and developmental responses of stomata, on crop performance remains a concern under all climate change scenarios, with potential impacts on future food security. To identify possible beneficial traits that could be exploited for future breeding, phenotypic variation in morphological traits including stomatal size and density, as well as physiological responses and critically, the effect of growth [CO2] on these traits, was assessed in six wheat relative accessions (including Aegilops tauschii, Triticum turgidum ssp. Dicoccoides, T. turgidum ssp. dicoccon) and five elite bread wheat T. aestivum cultivars. Exploiting a range of different species and ploidy, we identified key differences in photosynthetic capacity between elite hexaploid wheat and wheat relatives (WR). We also report differences in the speed of stomatal responses which were found to be faster in WR than elite cultivars, a trait that could be useful for enhanced photosynthetic carbon gain and water use efficiency. Furthermore, these traits do not all appear to be influenced by elevated [CO2] and determining the underlying genetics will be critical for future breeding programmes.

show abstract

“…in grapevine has been unintentionally weighed towards a tighter water conservation strategy. This, along with the partial stomatal closure observed under the occurring increase in atmospheric (CO 2 ; Stevens et al, 2021) has theoretically increased the susceptibility of the productive vineyards to heat stress. In essence, although further and extensive work is required in natural field conditions, we propose nitrogen fertilization as a potential candidate for fine-tuning strategies against abiotic stresses in grapevine.…”

Section: Manipulation Of Fertilization Practices For Contrasting Wate...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrogen control of transpiration in grapevine

Faralli

Bianchedi

Moser

et al. 2023

Physiologia Plantarum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transpiration per unit of leaf area is the end‐product of the root‐to‐leaf water transport within the plant, and it is regulated by a series of morpho‐physiological resistances and hierarchical signals. The rate of water transpired sustains a series of processes such as nutrient absorption and leaf evaporative cooling, with stomata being the end‐valves that maintain the optimal water loss under specific degrees of evaporative demand and soil moisture conditions. Previous work provided evidence of a partial modulation of water flux following nitrogen availability linking high nitrate availability with tight stomatal control of transpiration in several species. In this work, we tested the hypothesis that stomatal control of transpiration, among others signals, is partially modulated by soil nitrate (NO3−) availability in grapevine, with reduced NO3− availability (alkaline soil pH, reduced fertilization, and distancing NO3− source) associated with decreased water‐use efficiency and higher transpiration. We observed a general trend when NO3− was limiting with plants increasing either stomatal conductance or root‐shoot ratio in four independent experiments with strong associations between leaf water status, stomatal behavior, root aquaporins expression, and xylem sap pH. Carbon and oxygen isotopic signatures confirm the proximal measurements, suggesting the robustness of the signal that persists over weeks and under different gradients of NO3− availability and leaf nitrogen content. Nighttime stomatal conductance was unaffected by NO3− manipulation treatments, while application of high vapor pressure deficit conditions nullifies the differences between treatments. Genotypic variation for transpiration increase under limited NO3− availability was observed between rootstocks indicating that breeding (e.g., for high soil pH tolerance) unintentionally selected for enhanced mass flow nutrient acquisition under restrictive or nutrient‐buffered conditions. We provide evidence of a series of specific traits modulated by NO3− availability and suggest that NO3− fertilization is a potential candidate for optimizing grapevine water‐use efficiency and root exploration under the climate‐change scenario.

show abstract

Chapter 2 Stomatal Responses to Climate Change

Cited by 11 publications

References 217 publications

Stomata on the abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces contribute differently to leaf gas exchange and photosynthesis in wheat

Stomata on the abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces contribute differently to leaf gas exchange and photosynthesis in wheat

The impact of growth at elevated [CO2] on stomatal anatomy and behavior differs between wheat species and cultivars

Nitrogen control of transpiration in grapevine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About