Ecological Archives A025-145-A1

Ashehad A. Ali, Chonggang Xu, Alistair Rogers, Nathan G. McDowell, Belinda E. Medlyn, Rosie A. Fisher, Stan D. Wullschleger, Peter B. Reich, Jasper A. Vrugt, William L. Bauerle, Louis S. Santiago, and Cathy J. Wilson. 2015. Global-scale environmental control of plant photosynthetic capacity. Ecological Applications 25:23492365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2111.1

Appendix A. A list of published literature sources and further details of linear mixed effects analyses using various temperature response functions mentioned in the text.

Table A1. References to measurements of carboxylation rate (Vc,max25; µmol CO2 m-2 s-1), electron transport rate (Jmax25; µmol electron m-2 s-1) and leaf nitrogen contents (LNCa; gN m-2) of different types of studies (seasonal = 1, non-seasonal = 2 and vertical canopy layer studies = 3), different plant growth forms (herbaceous = 1, shrubs = 2, trees = 3) and the versions of equations (1, 2) studies used (see Appendix F for classification). The data set contains 833 data points of Vc,max25 and 636 data points of Jmax25 from 127 plant species.

Reference

Growth Form

Study Type

Equation Version

Bubier et al. (2011)

2

2

1

Calfapietra et al. (2005)

3

2

1

Carswell et al. (2000)

3

2,3

2

Crous et al. (2008)

3

2

1

Crous et al. (2010)

1

2

1

Curtis and Teeri (1992)

3

2

1

Curtis et al. (1995)

3

2

1

Domingues et al. (2005)

2,3

2,3

1

Domingues et al. (2007)

2,3

2,3

1

Domingues et al. (2010)

2,3

2

2

Frak et al. (2002)

3

3

1

Grassi and Bagnaresi (2001)

3

3

1

Grassi et al. (2005)

3

1

1

Han et al. (2003)

3

2

1

Han et al. (2004)

3

2

2

Han and Chiba (2009)

3

2

1

Hikosaka, Nabeshima and Hiura (2007)

3

2

1

Hollinger et al. (1992)

3

2

1

Iio et al. (2008)

3

1

1

Katahata et al. (2007)

2

2

1

Le Roux et al. (2001)

3

2,3

1

Limousin et al. (2013)

3

2

1

Maire et al. (2012)

1

2

1

Medlyn et al. (1999)

3

2

1

Medlyn et al. (2007)

3

1

2

Medlyn et al. (2002b)

3

2

1

Meir et al. (2002)

3

2,3

2

Meir et al. (2007)

3

2

1

Niinemets, Kull and Tenhunen (1998)

2,3

2,3

1

Niinemets et al. (2005)

3

2

1

Niinemets et al. (2007)

3

2

2

Niu et al. (2008)

1

2

2

Op de Beeck (2010)

3

2

1

Porté and Lostau (1998)

3

2,3

2

Rogers (unpublished data)

1,2

2

1

Rogers and Ellsworth (2002)

3

2

1

Rogers et al. (1998)

1

2

1

Santaigo and Mulkey (2003)

3

2

1

Sholtis et al. (2004)

3

2

1

van de Weg et al. (2012)

2,3

2

1

Vogel et al. (1995)

3

2

1

Walcroft et al. (2002)

3

2

1

Wang et al. (2008)

3

1

1

Warren et al. (2001)

3

2,3

2

Wilson, Baldocchi and Hanson (2000)

3

1

1

Xu and Baldocchi (2003)

3

1

1

Xu and Zhou (2006)

1

2

1

Zhang and Dang (2005)

3

2

1

Zhang, Hu and Li (2006)

3

2

2

 

Table A2. Coefficients of linear mixed-effects of photosynthetic capacity (Vc,max25;µmol CO2 m-2 s-1), leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and the maximum photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25;µmol CO2 g-1N s-1) of all of the plant functional types with different environmental variables (daytime radiation (R; W/m²), daytime duration (D; hours), temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless)). The temperature response function (TRF4) used to model Vc,max25 was based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation but had limited temperature acclimation, where the plant’s growth temperature was constrained between 11°C and 35°C. The p values shown in the parentheses were obtained using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Variables

Vc,max25

LNCa

NUEc,max25

Intercept

-38.15 (<0.01)

2.26 (<0.01)

-7.35 (0.41)

LNCa

16.37 (<0.01)

-

-

R

0.04 (<0.01)

0.001 (<0.01)

0.01 (0.12)

D

4.16 (<0.01)

-0.023 (<0.05)

2.72 (<0.01)

RH

12.19 (0.49)

-0.26 (0.25)

9.88 (0.32)

T

-0.94 (<0.01)

-0.003 (0.51)

-0.49 (<0.01)

 

Table A3. Correlation matrix of daytime radiation, day length, temperature, relative humidity, and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa).

 

LNCa (gN m-2)

Daytime radiation (W/m²)

Day length (hours)

Relative humidity (unitless)

Growth temperature (°C)

LNCa (gN m-2)

-

0.16

-0.10

-0.18

0.07

Daytime radiation (W/m²)

0.16

-

0.35

-0.40

0.002

Day length (hours)

-0.10

0.35

-

0.33

-0.50

Relative humidity (unitless)

-0.18

-0.40

0.33

-

-0.32

Growth temperature (°C)

0.07

0.002

-0.50

-0.32

-

 

Table A4. The estimated variance of different errors resulting from spatial location, species, time (month) and residual are denoted as εlocation, εspecies, εmonth and ε, respectively, for the linear mixed-effects model of Vc,max25 (µmol CO2 m-2s-1) using different TRFs. Temperature response function 1 (TRF1) is adapted from Collatz et al. (1991) and Sellers et al. (1996), TRF2 is a temperature response function proposed by Leuning (2002), TRF3 is a temperature response function based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation of acclimation, where temperature optimum was a function of growth temperature, and TRF4 is based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation but with limited temperature acclimation, where the plant’s growth temperature was constrained between 11°C and 35°C. See Appendix G for details of different temperature response functions.

Temperature response functions

εlocation

εspecies

εmonth

ε

TRF1

228

95

206

159

TRF2

238

110

127

196

TRF3

246

94

144

176

TRF4

248

105

136

188

 

Table A5. The estimated variance of different errors resulting from spatial location, species, time (month) and residual are denoted as εlocation, εspecies, εmonth and ε, respectively, for the linear mixed-effects model of Jmax25 (µmol electron m-2s-1) using different TRFs. Temperature response function 1 (TRF1) is adapted from Collatz et al. (1991) and Sellers et al. (1996), TRF2 is a temperature response function proposed by Leuning (2002), TRF3 is a temperature response function based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation of acclimation, where temperature optimum was a function of growth temperature, and TRF4 is based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation but with limited temperature acclimation, where the plant’s growth temperature was constrained between 11°C and 35°C. See Appendix G for details of different temperature response functions.

Temperature response functions

εlocation

εspecies

εmonth

ε

TRF1

828

476

558

716

TRF2

735

374

226

592

TRF3

860

453

564

750

TRF4

560

439

309

754

 

Table A6. Intercepts and coefficients of the linear mixed-effects model of Vc,max25 (µmol CO2 m-2s-1) of the fowling form: ,form that consisted the growth form (herbaceous (H), shrubs (S) and trees (Tr)), environmental variables (day length, (D), relative humidity, (RH), temperature (T) and radiation (R)) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa) for different TRFs. Temperature response function 1 (TRF1) is adapted from Collatz et al. (1991) and Sellers et al. (1996), TRF2 is a temperature response function proposed by Leuning (2002), TRF3 is a temperature response function based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation of acclimation, where temperature optimum was a function of growth temperature, and TRF4 is based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation but with limited temperature acclimation, where the plant’s growth temperature was constrained between 11°C and 35°C. See Appendix G for details of different temperature response functions.

Temperature response function

a

b0

b1

b2

b3

b4

b5

b6

b7

TRF1

-48

0

8.3

-3.8

4.2

25

-1.2

0.06

17.8

TRF2

-71

0

12.3

-2.3

5.1

32

-0.9

0.07

19.2

TRF3

-56

0

11.4

1.9

4.2

23

-0.98

0.07

18.5

TRF4

-65

0

12

-0.2

4.9

28

-1.1

0.07

19

 

Table A7. Intercepts and coefficients of the linear mixed-effects model of Jmax25 (µmol electron m-2 s-1) of the fowling form: ,A7-form that consisted the growth form (herbaceous (H), shrubs (S) and trees (Tr)), environmental variables (day length, (D), relative humidity, (RH), temperature (T) and radiation (R)) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa) for different TRFs. Temperature response function 1 (TRF1) is adapted from Collatz et al. (1991) and Sellers et al. (1996), TRF2 is a temperature response function proposed by Leuning (2002), TRF3 is a temperature response function based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation of acclimation, where temperature optimum was a function of growth temperature, and TRF4 is based on Kattge and Knorr (2007)’s formulation but with limited temperature acclimation, where the plant’s growth temperature was constrained between 11°C and 35°C. See Appendix G for details of different temperature response functions.

Temperature response function

a

b0

b1

b2

b3

b4

b5

b6

b7

TRF1

-48

0

-25

-45

8.4

83.5

-3.4

0.1

34

TRF2

-56

0

-27

-50

8.7

83.1

-3.2

0.1

30

TRF3

-43

0

-24

-42

8.1

81

-3.5

0.1

35

TRF4

-79

0

-20

-40

9.8

92.1

-3.2

0.1

34

 

FigA1

Fig. A1. Box plots of individual data points of Vc,max25, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25), Jmax25, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Jmax25 (NUEj,max25) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa) by latitude (a,b,c,d,e,f). Vc,max25, NUEc,max25, NUEj,max25 and LNCa were binned at latitude in correspondence with their biome regions; Temperate region in the South of Equator (Temp(S)), Tropical, Temperate region in the North of Equator (Temp(N)), Boreal and Arctic. We used TRF1 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA2

Fig. A2. Box plots of individual data points of Vc,max25, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25), Jmax25, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Jmax25 (NUEj,max25) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa) by latitude (a,b,c,d,e,f). Vc,max25, NUEc,max25, NUEj,max25 and  LNCa were binned at latitude in correspondence with their biome regions; Temperate region in the South of Equator (Temp(S)), Tropical, Temperate region in the North of Equator (Temp(N)), Boreal and Arctic. We used TRF2 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA3

Fig. A3. Box plots of individual data points of Vc,max25, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25), Jmax25, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Jmax25 (NUEj,max25) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa) by latitude (a,b,c,d,e,f). Vc,max25, NUEc,max25, NUEj,max25 and LNCa were binned at latitude in correspondence with their biome regions; Temperate region in the South of Equator (Temp(S)), Tropical, Temperate region in the North of Equator (Temp(N)), Boreal and Arctic. We used TRF3 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA4

Fig. A4. Percentage of variation in Vc,max25 (µmol CO2 m-2 s-1) explained by area-based leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and all of the environmental variables (E) are shown (a), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), growth temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless), and “” includes daytime radiation, growth temperature and relative humidity.  The relationship between Vc,max25 and environmental variables including day length (b), daytime radiation (c), temperature (d), relative humidity (e), and leaf nitrogen content (f) with the gray solid line estimated from linear mixed-effects model. The data points correspond to an individual leaf. The coefficient of the regression and corresponding p values (in the parentheses) is shown in different panels. We used TRF1 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA5

Fig. A5. Percentage of variation in Jmax25 (µmol electron m-2 s-1) explained by area-based leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and all of the environmental variables (E) are shown (a), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), growth temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless), and “” includes daytime radiation, growth temperature and relative humidity.  The relationship between Jmax25 and environmental variables including day length (b), daytime radiation (c), temperature (d), relative humidity (e), and leaf nitrogen content (f) with the gray solid line estimated from linear mixed-effects model. The data points correspond to an individual leaf. The coefficient of the regression and corresponding p values (in the parentheses) is shown in different panels. We used TRF1 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA6

Fig. A6. Percentage of variation in Vc,max25 (µmol CO2 m-2 s-1) explained by area-based leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and all of the environmental variables (E) are shown (a), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), growth temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless), and “” includes daytime radiation, growth temperature and relative humidity. The relationship between Vc,max25 and environmental variables including day length (b), daytime radiation (c), temperature (d), relative humidity (e), and leaf nitrogen content (f) with the gray solid line estimated from linear mixed-effects model. The data points correspond to an individual leaf. The coefficient of the regression and corresponding p values (in the parentheses) is shown in different panels. We used TRF2 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA7

Fig. A7. Percentage of variation in Jmax25 (µmol electron m-2 s-1) explained by area-based leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and all of the environmental variables (E) are shown (a), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), growth temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless), and “” includes daytime radiation, growth temperature and relative humidity. The relationship between Jmax25 and environmental variables including day length (b), daytime radiation (c), temperature (d), relative humidity (e), and leaf nitrogen content (f) with the grey solid line estimated from linear mixed-effects model. The data points correspond to an individual leaf. The coefficient of the regression and corresponding p values (in the parentheses) is shown in different panels. We used TRF2 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA8

Fig. A8. Percentage of variation in Vc,max25 (µmol CO2 m-2 s-1) explained by area-based leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and all of the environmental variables (E) are shown (a), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), growth temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless), and “” includes daytime radiation, growth temperature and relative humidity. The relationship between Vc,max25 and environmental variables including day length (b), daytime radiation (c), temperature (d), relative humidity (e), and leaf nitrogen content (f) with the gray solid line estimated from linear mixed-effects model. The data points correspond to an individual leaf. The coefficient of the regression and corresponding p values (in the parentheses) is shown in different panels. We used TRF3 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA9

Fig. A9. Percentage of variation in Jmax25 (µmol electron m-2 s-1) explained by area-based leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and all of the environmental variables (E) are shown (a), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), growth temperature (T; °C), relative humidity (RH; unitless), and “” includes daytime radiation, growth temperature and relative humidity. The relationship between Jmax25 and environmental variables including day length (b), daytime radiation (c), temperature (d), relative humidity (e), and leaf nitrogen content (f) with the gray solid line estimated from linear mixed-effects model. The data points correspond to an individual leaf. The coefficient of the regression and corresponding p values (in the parentheses) is shown in different panels. We used TRF3 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA10

Fig. A10. Percentage of variations in (a) photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25; µmol CO2 g-1N s-1), leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and (b) photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Jmax25 (NUEj,max25; µmol electron g-1N s-1) explained by all of the environmental variables (E), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), temperature (T; °C), and relative humidity (RH; unitless). We used TRF1 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA11

Fig. A11. Percentage of variations in (a) photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25; µmol CO2 g-1N s-1), leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and (b) photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Jmax25 (NUEj,max25; µmol electron g-1N s-1) explained by all of the environmental variables (E), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), temperature (T; °C), and relative humidity (RH; unitless). We used TRF2 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA12

Fig. A12. Percentage of variations in (a) photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Vc,max25 (NUEc,max25; µmol CO2 g-1N s-1), leaf nitrogen content (LNCa; gN m-2) and (b) photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of Jmax25 (NUEj,max25; µmol electron g-1N s-1) explained by all of the environmental variables (E), where the specific environmental variables include day length (D; hours), daytime radiation (R; W/m²), temperature (T; °C), and relative humidity (RH; unitless). We used TRF3 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA13

Fig. A13. Percentage of variations in Vc,max25 explained by different plant functional types (PFT), environmental variables (E) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa). Species were grouped in 4 different combination of plant functional types (PFTs) by using the growth form (herbaceous, shrubs and trees), leaf form (needleleaf and broadleaf), leaf status (evergreen and deciduous), region (tropical, temperate, boreal and artic) and soil type (oxisol or non-oxisol). PFT definition 1 (PFTD1) consisted of growth form only (total of 3 PFTs), PFT definition 2 (PFTD2) included growth form, leaf form and leaf status (total of 9 PFTs), PFT definition 3 (PFTD3) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status and region (total of 19 PFTs), and PFT definition 4 (PFTD4) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status, region and soil type (total of 21 PFTs).The dashed line indicates the amount (57%) of the variation in Vc,max25 explained by environmental variables and LNCa. We used TRF1 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA14

Fig. A14. Percentage of variations in Jmax25 explained by different plant functional types (PFT), environmental variables (E) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa). Species were grouped in 4 different combination of plant functional types (PFTs) by using the growth form (herbaceous, shrubs and trees), leaf form (needleleaf and broadleaf), leaf status (evergreen and deciduous), region (tropical, temperate, boreal and artic) and soil type (oxisol or non-oxisol). PFT definition 1 (PFTD1) consisted of growth form only (total of 3 PFTs), PFT definition 2 (PFTD2) included growth form, leaf form and leaf status (total of 9 PFTs), PFT definition 3 (PFTD3) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status and region (total of 19 PFTs), and PFT definition 4 (PFTD4) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status, region and soil type (total of 21 PFTs).The dashed line indicates the amount (68.5%) of the variation in Vc,max25 explained by environmental variables and LNCa. We used TRF1 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA15

Fig. A15. Percentage of variations in Vc,max25 explained by different plant functional types (PFT), environmental variables (E) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa). Species were grouped in 4 different combination of plant functional types (PFTs) by using the growth form (herbaceous, shrubs and trees), leaf form (needleleaf and broadleaf), leaf status (evergreen and deciduous), region (tropical, temperate, boreal and artic) and soil type (oxisol or non-oxisol). PFT definition 1 (PFTD1) consisted of growth form only (total of 3 PFTs), PFT definition 2 (PFTD2) included growth form, leaf form and leaf status (total of 9 PFTs), PFT definition 3 (PFTD3) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status and region (total of 19 PFTs), and PFT definition 4 (PFTD4) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status, region and soil type (total of 21 PFTs).The dashed line indicates the amount (57.5%) of the variation in Vc,max25 explained by environmental variables and LNCa. We used TRF2 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA16

Fig. A16. Percentage of variations in Jmax25 explained by different plant functional types (PFT), environmental variables (E) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa). Species were grouped in 4 different combination of plant functional types (PFTs) by using the growth form (herbaceous, shrubs and trees), leaf form (needleleaf and broadleaf), leaf status (evergreen and deciduous), region (tropical, temperate, boreal and artic) and soil type (oxisol or non-oxisol). PFT definition 1 (PFTD1) consisted of growth form only (total of 3 PFTs), PFT definition 2 (PFTD2) included growth form, leaf form and leaf status (total of 9 PFTs), PFT definition 3 (PFTD3) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status and region (total of 19 PFTs), and PFT definition 4 (PFTD4) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status, region and soil type (total of 21 PFTs).The dashed line indicates the amount (69%) of the variation in Vc,max25 explained by environmental variables and LNCa. We used TRF2 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA17

Fig. A17. Percentage of variations in Vc,max25 explained by different plant functional types (PFT), environmental variables (E) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa). Species were grouped in 4 different combination of plant functional types (PFTs) by using the growth form (herbaceous, shrubs and trees), leaf form (needleleaf and broadleaf), leaf status (evergreen and deciduous), region (tropical, temperate, boreal and artic) and soil type (oxisol or non-oxisol). PFT definition 1 (PFTD1) consisted of growth form only (total of 3 PFTs), PFT definition 2 (PFTD2) included growth form, leaf form and leaf status (total of 9 PFTs), PFT definition 3 (PFTD3) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status and region (total of 19 PFTs), and PFT definition 4 (PFTD4) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status, region and soil type (total of 21 PFTs).The dashed line indicates the amount (52%) of the variation in Vc,max25 explained by environmental variables and LNCa. We used TRF3 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA18

Fig. A18. Percentage of variations in Jmax25 explained by different plant functional types (PFT), environmental variables (E) and leaf nitrogen content (LNCa). Species were grouped in 4 different combination of plant functional types (PFTs) by using the growth form (herbaceous, shrubs and trees), leaf form (needleleaf and broadleaf), leaf status (evergreen and deciduous), region (tropical, temperate, boreal and artic) and soil type (oxisol or non-oxisol). PFT definition 1 (PFTD1) consisted of growth form only (total of 3 PFTs), PFT definition 2 (PFTD2) included growth form, leaf form and leaf status (total of 9 PFTs), PFT definition 3 (PFTD3) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status and region (total of 19 PFTs), and PFT definition 4 (PFTD4) comprised of growth form, leaf form, leaf status, region and soil type (total of 21 PFTs).The dashed line indicates the amount (56%) of the variation in Vc,max25 explained by environmental variables and LNCa. We used TRF3 as the temperature response function.


 

FigA19

Fig. A19. Relationship between Vc,max25 (µmol CO2 m-2 s-1) and temperature (°C) (a) sing two temperature response functions; without temperature acclimation (TRF2; green) and with temperature acclimation (TRF3; blue) at two different growth temperatures; 8°C and 31°C, and the frequency distribution of the measured temperature (b) for our data set is shown. The relationship between Vc,max25 and day length, and the amount of explained variation in Vc,max25 by day length (r2) using TRF2 (c) and TRF3 (d) are also shown. The data points correspond to an individual leaf.


 

Literature cited

Bubier, J. L., R. Smith, S. Juutinen, T. R. Moore, R. Minocha, S. Long, and S. Minocha. 2011. Effects of nutrient addition on leaf chemistry, morphology, and photosynthetic capacity of three bog shrubs. Oecologia 167:355-368.

Calfapietra, C., I. Tulva, E. Eensalu, M. Perez, P. De Angelis, G. Scarascia-Mugnozza, and O. Kull. 2005. Canopy profiles of photosynthetic parameters under elevated CO2 and N fertilization in a poplar plantation. Environmental Pollution 137:525-535.

Carswell, F. E., P. Meir, E. V. Wandelli, L. C. M. Bonates, B. Kruijt, E. M. Barbosa, A. D. Nobre, J. Grace, and P. G. Jarvis. 2000. Photosynthetic capacity in a central Amazonian rain forest. Tree Physiology 20:179-186.

Collatz, G. J., J. T. Ball, C. Grivet, and J. A. Berry. 1991. Physiological and environmental regualtion of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, and transpiration: A model that includes a laminar boundary layer. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54:107-136.

Crous, K. Y., P. B. Reich, M. D. Hunter, and D. S. Ellsworth. 2010. Maintenance of leaf N controls the photosynthetic CO2 response of grassland species exposed to 9 years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Global Change Biology 16:2076-2088.

Crous, K. Y., M. B. Walters, and D. S. Ellsworth. 2008. Elevated CO2 concentration affetcs leaf photosynthesis-nitrogen relationships in Pinus taeda over nine years in FACE. Tree Physiology 28:607-614.

Curtis, P. S., and J. A. Teeri. 1992. Seasonal responses of leaf gas exchange to elevated carbon dioxide in Populus grandidentata. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22:1320-1325.

Curtis, P. S., C. S. Vogel, K. S. Pregitzer, D. R. Zak, and J. A. Teeri. 1995. Interacting effects of soil fertility and atmospheric CO2 on leaf area growth and carbon gain physiology in Populus x euramericana (Dode) Guinier. New Phytologist 129:253-263.

Domingues, T. F., J. A. Berry, L. A. Martinelli, J. P. H. B. Ometto, and J. R. Ehleringer. 2005. Parameterization of canopy structure and leaf-level gas exchange for an eastern amazonian tropical rain forest (Tapajós National Forest, Pará, Brazil). Earth Interactions 9:1-23.

Domingues, T. F., L. A. Martinelli, and J. R. Ehleringer. 2007. Ecophysiological traits of plant functional froups in forest and pasture ecosystems from eastern Amazônia, Brazil. Plant Ecology 193:101-112.

Domingues, T. F., P. Meir, T. R. Feldpausch, G. Saiz, E. M. Veenendaal, F. Schrodt, M. Bird, G. Djagbletey, F. Hien, H. Compaore, A. Diallo, J. Grace, and J. Lloyd. 2010. Co-limitation of photosynthetic capacity by niitrogen and phosphorus in West Africa woodlands. Plant, Cell and Environment 33:959-980.

Frak, E., X. Le Roux, P. Millard, B. Adam, E. Dreyer, C. Escuit, H. Sinoquet, M. Vandame, and C. Varlet-Grancher. 2002. Spatial distribution of leaf nitrogen and photosynthetic capacity within the foliage of individual trees: disentangling the effects of local light quality, leaf irradiance, and transpiration. Journal of Experimental Botany 53:2207-2216.

Grassi, G., and U. Bagnaresi. 2001. Foliar morphological and physiological plasticity in Picea abies and Abies alba saplings along a natural light gradient  Tree Physiology 21:959-967.

Grassi, G., E. Vicinelli, F. Ponti, L. Cantoni, and F. Magnani. 2005. Seasonal and interannual variability of photosynthetic capacity in relation to leaf nitrogen in a deciduous forest plantation in northern Italy. Tree Physiology 25:349-360.

Han, Q., and Y. Chiba. 2009. Leaf photosynthesis responses and related nitrogen changes associated with crown reclosure after thinning in a young Chamaecyparis obtusa stand. Journal of Forest Research 14:349-357.

Han, Q., T. Kawasaki, S. Katahata, Y. Mukai, and Y. Chiba. 2003. Horizontal and vertical variations in photosynthetic capacity in a Pinus densiflora crown in relation to leaf nitrogen allocation and acclimation to irradiance. Tree Physiology 23:851-857.

Han, Q., T. Kawasaki, T. Nakano, and Y. Chiba. 2004. Spatial and seasonal variability of temperature responses of biochemical photosynthesis parameters and leaf nitrogen content with a Pinus densiflora crown. Tree Physiology 24:737-744.

Hikosaka, K., E. Nabeshima, and T. Hiura. 2007. Seasonal changes in the temperature response of photosynthesis in canopy leaves of Quercus crispula in a cool-temperate forest. Tree Physiology 27:1035-1041.

Hollinger, D. Y. 1992. Leaf and simulated whole-canopy photosynthesis in two co-occurring tree species. Ecology 73:1-14.

Iio, A., A. Yokoyama, M. Takano, T. Nakamura, H. Fukasawa, Y. Nose, and Y. Kakubari. 2008. Interannual variation in leaf photosynthetic capacity during summer in relation to nitrogen, leaf mass per area and climate within a Fagus crenata crown on Naeba Mountain, Japan. Tree Physiology 28:1421-1429.

Katahata, S., M. Naramoto, Y. Kakubari, and Y. Mukai. 2007. Photosynthetic capacity and nitrogen partitioning in foliage of the evergreen shrub Daphniphyllum humile along a natural light gradient. Tree Physiology 27:199-208.

Kattge, J., and W. Knorr. 2007. Temperature acclimation in a biochemical model of photosynthesis: a reanalysis of data from 36 species. Plant, Cell and Environment 30:1176-1190.

Le Roux, X., A. Walcroft, F. Daudet, H. Sinoquet, M. M. Chaves, A. Rodrigues, and L. Osorio. 2001. Photosynthetic light acclimation in peach leaves: importance of chnages in mass:area ratio, nitrogen concentration, and leaf nitrogen partitioning. Tree Physiology 21:377-386.

Leuning, R. 2002. Temperature dependence of two parameters in a photosynthesis model. Plant, Cell and Environment 25:1205-1210.

Limousin, J.-M., C. P. Bickford, L. T. Dickman, R. E. Pangle, P. J. Hudson, A. L. Boutz, N. Gehres, J. L. Osuna, W. T. Pockman, and N. McDowell. 2013. Regulation and acclimation of leaf gas exchange in a piñon-juniper woodland exposed to three different precipitation regimes. Plant, Cell and Environment 36:1812-1825.

Maire, V., P. Martre, J. Kattge, F. Gastal, G. Esser, S. Fontaine, and F. Soussana. 2012. The coordination of leaf photosynthesis links C and N fluxes in C3 plant species. PLos ONE 7:e38245.

Medlyn, B. E., F.-W. Badeck, D. G. G. De Pury, C. V. M. Barton, M. Broadmeadow, R. Ceulemans, P. De Angelis, M. Forstreuter, M. E. Jach, S. Kellomäki, E. Laitat, M. Marek, S. Philippot, A. Rey, J. Strassemeyer, K. Laitinen, R. P. Liozon, B., P. Proberntz, K. Wang, and P. G. Jarvis. 1999. Effects of elevated [CO2] on photosynthesis in European forest species: a meta-analysis of model parameters. Plant, Cell and Environment 22:1475-1495.

Medlyn, B. E., D. Loustau, and S. Delzon. 2002b. Temperature response of parameters of a biochemically based model of photosynthesis. I. Seasonal changes in mature maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). Plant, Cell and Environment 25:1155-1165.

Medlyn, B. E., D. A. Pepper, A. P. O'Grady, and H. Keith. 2007. Linking leaf and tree water use with an individual-tree model. Tree Physiology 27:1687-1699.

Meir, P., B. Kruijt, M. Broadmeadow, E. M. Barbosa, O. Kull, F. E. Carswell, A. D. Nobre, and P. G. Jarvis. 2002. Acclimation of photosynthetic capacity to irradiance in tree canopies in relation to leaf nitrogen concentration and leaf mass per unit area. Plant, Cell and Environment 25:343-357.

Meir, P., P. E. Levy, J. Grace, and P. G. Jarvis. 2007. Photosynthetic parameters from two contrasting woody vegetation types in West Africa. Plant Ecology 192:277-287.

Niinemets, Ü., A. Cessatti, M. Rodeghiero, and T. Tosens. 2005. Leaf internal diffusion conductance limits photosynthesis more strongly in older leaves on Mediterranean evergreen broad-leaved species. Plant, Cell and Environment 28:1552-1566.

Niinemets, U., O. Kull, and J. D. Tenhunen. 1998. An analysis of light effects on foliar morphology, physiology, and light interception in temperate decidious woody species of contrasting shade tolerance. Tree Physiology 18:681-696.

Niinemets, Ü., A. Lukjanova, M. H. Turnbull, and A. D. Sparrow. 2007. Plasticity in mesophyll volume fraction modulates light-acclimation in needle photosynthesis in two pines. Tree Physiology 27:1137-1151.

Niu, S., Z. Li, J. Xia, Y. Han, M. Wu, and S. Wan. 2008. Climatic warming changes plant photosynthesis and its temperature dependence in a temperate steppe of northern China. Environmental and Experimental Botany 63:91-101.

Op de Beeck, M., B. Gielen, I. Jonckheere, R. Samson, I. A. Janssens, and R. Ceulemans. 2010. Needle age-related and seasonal photosynthetic capacity variation is negligible for modelling yearly gaas exchange of a sparse temperate Scots pine forest. Biogeosciences 7:199-215.

Porté, A., and D. Loustau. 1998. Variability of the photosynthetic characteristics of mature needles within the crown of a 25-year old Pinus pinaster. Tree Physiology 18:223-232.

Rogers, A., and D. S. Ellsworth. 2002. Photosynthetic acclimation of Pinus taeda (loblolly pines) to long-term growth in elevated pCO2 (FACE). Plant, Cell and Environment 25:851-858.

Rogers, A., B. U. Fischer, J. Bryant, M. Frehner, H. Blum, C. A. Raines, and S. P. Long. 1998. Acclimation of photosynthesis to elevated CO2 under low-nitrogen is affected by the capacity for assimilate utilization. Perenial ryegrass under free-air CO2 enrichment. Plant Physiology 118:683-689.

Santiago, L. S., and S. S. Mulkey. 2003. A test of gas exchange measurements on excised canopy branches of ten tropical tree species. Photosynthetica 41:343-347.

Sellers, P. J., D. A. Randall, G. J. Collatz, J. A. Berry, C. B. Field, D. A. Dazlich, C. Zhang, G. D. Collelo, and L. Bounoua. 1996. A revised land surface parametrization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs. Part I: Model formulation. Journal of Climate 9:676-705.

Sholtis, J. D., C. A. Gunderson, R. J. Norby, and D. T. Tissue. 2004. Persistent stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 in a sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) forest stand. New Phytologist 162:343-354.

van de Weg, M. J., P. Meir, J. Grace, and G. D. Ramos. 2012. Photosynthetic parameters, dark respiration and leaf traits in the canopy of a Peruvian tropical montane cloud forest. Oecologia 168:23-34.

Vogel, C. S., and P. S. Curtis. 1995. Leaf gas exchange and nitrogen dynamics of N2-fixing, field-grown Alnus glutinosa under elevated atmospheric CO2. Global Change Biology 1:55-61.

Walcroft, A., X. LeRoux, A. Diaz-Espejo, N. Dones, and H. Sinoquet. 2002. Effects of crown development on leaf irradiance, leaf morphology and photosynthetic capacity in a peach tree. Tree Physiology 22:929-938.

Wang, Q., A. Iio, J. Tenhunen, and Y. Kakubari. 2008. Annual and seasonal variations in photosynthetic capacity of Fagus crenata along an elevation gradient in the Naeba Mountains, Japan. Tree Physiology 28:277-285.

Warren, C. R., and M. A. Adams. 2001. Distribution of N, rubisco and photosynthesis in Pinus pinaster and acclimation to light. Plant, Cell & Environment 24:597-609.

Wilson, K. B., D. D. Baldocchi, and P. J. Hanson. 2000. Spatial and seasonal variability of photosynthetic parameters and their relationship to leaf nitrogen in a deciduous forest. Tree Physiology 20:565-578.

Xu, L., and D. D. Baldocchi. 2003. Seasonal trends in photosynthetic parameters and stomatal conductance of blue oak (Quercus douglasii) under prolonged summer drought and high temperature. Tree Physiology 23:865-877.

Xu, Z. Z., and G. S. Zhou. 2006. Combined effects of water stress and high temperature on photosynthesis, nitrogen metabolism and lipid peroxidation of a perrenial grass Leymus chinensis. Planta 224:1080-1090.

Zhang, S., and Q.-L. Dang. 2005. Effects of soil temperature and elevated CO2 concentration on gas exchange, in vivo carboxylation and chlorophyll fluorescence in jack pine and white birch seedlings. Tree Physiology 25:523-531.

Zhang, S. B., H. Hu, and Z. R. Li. 2006. Gas exchange of three co-occurring species of Cypripedium in a scrubland in the Hengduan Mountains. Photosynthetica 44:241-247.


[Back to A025-145]