Photosynthetical and Ecophysiological Characteristics of Illicium lanceolatum Seedlings for Different Provenances

Abstract:

The photosynthetic ecophysiological characters of 4 different Illicium lanceolatum provenances in three different growth seasons were measured. The results showed that significant differences of photosynthesis were existed among provenances and their growth seasons. 1) In the early growth period, the decreasing order of the mean daily net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of 4 provenances were Lin’an (LA), Nan’ping (NP), Kai’hua (KH), and Wu’ning (WN) provenance and the order of mean daily transpiration rate (Tr) were LA, KH, NP and WN. In the prosperous growth period, the mean daily Pn ranked as in the decreasing order of WN, KH, LA and NP, and that of mean daily Tr were WN, KH, NP and LA. In the late growth period, the decreasing order of mean daily Pn were LA, KH, WN and NP. 2) I.lanceolatum had the obvious seasonal difference in the average value of Pn and Tr and that was ranked in decreasing order as flourishing growth period>early growth period >late growth period. 3) The path coefficient analysis indicated that the decreasing orders of important factors which affected Pn were temperature of leaf (Tleaf ), internal CO₂ concentration (Ci), difference of saturation of water vapor (Vpdl), Tr, stomatal conductance (Cond), temperature of air (Tair)and air CO₂ concentration of (Ca).

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 518-523)
• Pages: 5406-5410
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.518-523.5406
• Online since: May 2012
• Authors: Yong Hui Cao, Ben Zhi Zhou, Shuang Lin Chen, Jiang Hua Xiao, Xiao Ming Wang
• Keywords: Different Provenances, Diurnal Variation, Illicium Lanceolatum, Photosynthetic Characteristics, Seasonal Dynamics

References

[1] Bazzaz FA.(1996). Plants in changing environments: linking physiological, population, and community ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[2] Feng YL, Cao KF, Feng ZL, et al.（2002）.Acclimation of lamina mass per unit area, photosynthetic characteristics and dark respiration to growth light regimes in four tropical rainforest species. Acta Ecologica Sinica., 22(6):901-910

[3] Cai ZQ, Qi X, Cao KF.（2004）.Response of stomatal characteristics and its plasticity to different light intensities in leaves of seven tropical woody seedlings. Chinese Jouranl of Applied Ecology, 15(2):201-204

[4] Givnish T J, Monigomery R A and Goldstein G.（2004）. Adaptive radiation of photosynthetic physiology in the Hawaiian Lobeliads: light regimes, static light responses, and whole-plant compensation points. American Journal of Botany., 91(2):228-246

DOI: 10.3732/ajb.91.2.228

[5] Guo ZH, Hu QP, Wang R, et al.（2006）.Acclimatization of midrib angle and petiole angle of camptotheca acuminate decne to different light regimes in evergreen broadleaves forests. Forest Research.,19(5):647-652

[6] Hu QP, Guo ZH,Li CY,et al.（2008）. Leaf morphology and photosynthetic characteristics of seedlings of a deciduous and an evergreen broad-leaved species under different light regimes in subtropical forest. Acta Ecologica Sinica.,28(7):3262-3270

[7] Cao YH, Chen SL, Xiao JH, Wu M, Li YC (2008). Studies on the interspecific association of Illicium lanceolatum community in Tiantong region, Zhejiang province. J. Trop. Subtrop. Bot. , 16:100-108. (in Chinese)

[8] Cao YH (2009). Study on ecophysiological characteristics of Illicium lanceolatum. PhD dissertation, Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, China.

[9] Cao YH, Zhou BZ, Chen SL, Xiao JH, Wang XM (2011). The photosynthetic physiological properties of Illicium lanceolatum plants growing under different light intensity conditions. AJAR, 6:5736-5741.

DOI: 10.5897/ajar11.1158

[10] Liu XZ, Kang SZ.(2002). Effects of shading on photosynthesis, dry matter partitioning and N, P, K concentrations in leaves of tomato plants at different growth stages. Acta Ecologica Sinica., 22(12):2264-2271

[11] Miller R E, Gleadow R M, Woodrow I E.（2004）. Cyanogenesis in tropical Prunus turneriana: characterization variation and response to low light. Funct. Plant Biol., 31:491-503

DOI: 10.1071/fp03218