Carbon Inputs to Ecosystems 5

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Carbon Inputs to Ecosystems 5 Carbon Inputs to Ecosystems 5 Photosynthesis by plants provides the carbon address carbon inputs to ecosystems through and energy that drive most biological pro- photosynthesis in this chapter and the carbon cesses in ecosystems. This chapter describes losses from plants and ecosystems in Chaps. 6 the controls over carbon input to ecosystems. and 7, respectively. The balance of these processes governs the patterns of carbon accumulation and loss in ecosystems and the carbon distribution Introduction between the land, atmosphere, and ocean. The energy fixed by photosynthesis directly supports plant growth and produces organic A Focal Issue matter that is consumed by animals and soil microbes. The carbon derived from photosynthe- Carbon and water exchange through pores sis makes up about half of the organic matter on (stomata) in the leaf surface governs the effi- Earth; hydrogen and oxygen account for most of ciency with which increasingly scarce water the rest. Human activities have radically modified resources support food production for a grow- the rate at which carbon enters the terrestrial bio- ing human population. Open stomata (Fig. 5.1) sphere by changing most of the controls over this maximize carbon gain and productivity when process. We have increased the quantity of atmo- water is abundant, but at the cost of substantial spheric CO2 by 35% to which terrestrial plants are water loss. Partial closure of stomata under dry exposed. At regional and global scales, we have conditions reduces carbon gain but increases the altered the availability of water and nutrients, the efficiency with which water supports plant growth. major soil resources that determine the capacity What constrains the capacity of the biosphere to of plants to use atmospheric CO2. Finally, through gain carbon? Where and in what seasons does changes in land cover and the introduction and most photosynthesis occur? How do plants regu- extinction of species, we have changed the late the balance between carbon gain and water regional distribution of the carbon-fixing potential loss? Application of current understanding of the of the terrestrial biosphere. Because of the central controls over tradeoffs between carbon gain and role that carbon plays in the climate system (see water loss could reduce the likelihood of a “train Chap. 2), the biosphere, and society, it is critical wreck” resulting from current trends in increasing that we understand the factors that regulate food demands and declining availability of fresh- its cycling through plants and ecosystems. We water to support agricultural production. F.S. Chapin, III et al., Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology, 123 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-9504-9_5, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 124 5 Carbon Inputs to Ecosystems Fig. 5.1 Surface of a Tradescantia virginiana leaf with opening influences both the maximum rate and the effi- open stomatal pores. Selection for plants that differ in sto- ciency with which plants use water to gain carbon. matal density and physiological regulation of stomatal Photograph courtesy of Peter Franks Carbon is the main element that plants reduce Overview of Carbon Inputs with energy derived from the sun. Carbon and to Ecosystems energy are therefore tightly linked as they enter, move through, and leave ecosystems. Photosynthesis is the process by which most Photosynthesis uses light energy (i.e., radiation carbon and chemical energy enter ecosystems. in the visible portion of the spectrum) to reduce The proximate controls over photosynthesis at CO2 and produce carbon-containing organic the cellular or leaf level are the availability of compounds. This organic carbon and its associ- photosynthetic reactants such as light energy ated energy are then transferred among compo- and CO2; temperature, which governs reaction nents within the ecosystem and are eventually rates; and the availability of nitrogen, which is released to the atmosphere by respiration or required to produce photosynthetic enzymes. combustion. Photosynthesis at the scale of ecosystems is The energy content of organic matter varies termed gross primary production (GPP). Like among carbon compounds, but for whole tissues, photosynthesis by individual cells or leaves, GPP it is relatively constant at about 20 kJ g−1 of ash- varies diurnally and seasonally in response to free dry mass (Golley 1961; Larcher 2003; variations in light, temperature, and nitrogen sup- Fig. 5.3). The carbon concentration of organic ply. Differences among ecosystems in annual matter is also variable but averages about 45% of GPP, however, are determined primarily by the dry weight in herbaceous tissues and 50% in wood quantity of photosynthetic tissue and the duration (Gower et al. 1999; Sterner and Elser 2002). Both of its activity (Fig. 5.2). These, in turn, depend on the carbon and energy contents of organic matter the availability of soil resources (water and nutri- are greatest in materials such as seeds and animal ents), climate, and time since disturbance. In this fat that have high lipid content and are lowest in chapter, we explore the mechanisms behind these tissues with high concentrations of minerals or causal relationships. organic acids. Because of the relative constancy Biochemistry of Photosynthesis 125 LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM CONTROLS CONTROLS STATE Interactive Direct FACTORS controls controls Plant BIOTA functional Leaf area types TIME Soil Nitrogen resources Season GPP PARENT length MATERIAL Temperature CLIMATE Light CO2 Fig. 5.2 The major factors governing temporal and Thickness of the arrows indicates the strength of the direct spatial variation in gross primary production (GPP) in and indirect effects. The factors that account for most of ecosystems. These controls range from proximate con- the variation among ecosystems in GPP are leaf area and trols, which determine the diurnal and seasonal variations length of the photosynthetic season, which are ultimately in GPP, to the interactive controls and state factors, which determined by the interacting effects of soil resources, are the ultimate causes of ecosystem differences in GPP. climate, vegetation, and disturbance regime of the carbon and energy contents of organic Needle-leaved matter, carbon, energy, and biomass have been 28 tree Broad-leaved used interchangeably as currencies of the carbon tree and energy dynamics of ecosystems. The pre- ) 26 1 Herb − ferred units differ among subfields of ecology, g depending on the processes that are of greatest 24 interest or are measured most directly. Production studies, for example, typically focus on biomass, 22 trophic studies on energy, and gas exchange stud- ies on carbon. Energy content (kJ 20 18 Biochemistry of Photosynthesis Leaf Stem Seed Root/ The biochemistry of photosynthesis governs rhizome the environmental controls over carbon inputs Fig. 5.3 Energy content of major tissues in conifer trees, to ecosystems. Photosynthesis involves two major broad-leaved trees, and broad-leaved herbs. Compounds groups of reactions: The light-harvesting reac- that contribute to a high energy content include lipids tions (or light-dependent reactions) transform light (seeds), terpenes and resins (conifers), proteins (leaves), and lignin (woody tissues). Values are expressed per gram energy into temporary forms of chemical energy of ash-free dry mass. Data from Larcher (2003) (ATP and NADPH; Lambers et al. 2008). The 126 5 Carbon Inputs to Ecosystems Light Light-harvesting Starch reactions e chl Sugar export NADP + 2 3C sugars H O H + O2 2 Carbon-fixation reactions oid oid ylak ylak NADPH CO2 Th Th RuBP O2 ATP (5C sugar) H+ Photo- respiration 2 2C compounds ADP Thylakoid 2C Stroma export O2 Fig. 5.4 A chloroplast, showing the location of the major provide the energy to synthesize ribulose-bisphosphate photosynthetic reactions. The light-harvesting reactions (RuBP), which reacts either with CO2 to produce sugars and occur in the thylakoid membranes; chlorophyll (chl) absorbs starch (carbon-fixation reactions of photosynthesis) or with visible light and funnels the energy to reaction centers, O2 to produce two-carbon intermediates (photorespiration) + where water inside the thylakoid is split to H and O2, and and ultimately CO2. Through either carbon fixation or pho- resulting electrons are passed down an electron-transport torespiration, ADP and NADP are regenerated to become chain in the thylakoid membrane, ultimately to NADP, pro- reactants in the production of additional ATP and NADPH. ducing NADPH. During this process, protons move across The net effect of photosynthesis is to convert light energy the thylakoid membrane to the stroma, and the proton (H+) into chemical energy (sugars and starches) that is available gradient drives the synthesis of ATP. ATP and NADPH to support plant growth and maintenance carbon-fixation reactions (or light-independent potential efficiency of photosynthesis in convert- reactions, sometimes called the dark reaction) ing solar radiation into chemical energy. use the products of the light-harvesting reactions The carbon-fixation reactions of photosynthe- to convert CO2 into sugars, a more permanent sis use the chemical energy (ATP and NADPH) form of chemical energy that can be stored, from the light-harvesting reactions to reduce CO2 transported, or metabolized. Both groups of to sugars. The rate-limiting step in the carbon- reactions occur simultaneously in the light in fixation reactions is the reaction of a five-carbon chloroplasts, which are organelles inside pho- sugar (ribulose-bisphosphate [RuBP]) with CO2 to tosynthetic cells (Fig. 5.4). In the light-harvest- form two three-carbon organic acids (phospho- ing reactions, chlorophyll (a light-absorbing glycerate), which are then reduced using ATP and pigment) captures energy from visible light. NADPH from the light reactions to form three- Absorbed radiation is converted to chemical carbon sugars (glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate). The energy (NADPH and ATP), and oxygen is pro- initial attachment of CO2 to a carbon skeleton is duced as a waste product. Visible radiation catalyzed by the enzyme ribulose-bisphosphate accounts for 40% of incoming solar radiation carboxylase-oxygenase (Rubisco). The rate of this (see Chap.
Recommended publications
  • Approved Plant List 10/04/12
    FLORIDA The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time to plant a tree is today. City of Sunrise Approved Plant List 10/04/12 Appendix A 10/4/12 APPROVED PLANT LIST FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SG xx Slow Growing “xx” = minimum height in Small Mature tree height of less than 20 feet at time of planting feet OH Trees adjacent to overhead power lines Medium Mature tree height of between 21 – 40 feet U Trees within Utility Easements Large Mature tree height greater than 41 N Not acceptable for use as a replacement feet * Native Florida Species Varies Mature tree height depends on variety Mature size information based on Betrock’s Florida Landscape Plants Published 2001 GROUP “A” TREES Common Name Botanical Name Uses Mature Tree Size Avocado Persea Americana L Bahama Strongbark Bourreria orata * U, SG 6 S Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum * L Black Olive Shady Bucida buceras ‘Shady Lady’ L Lady Black Olive Bucida buceras L Brazil Beautyleaf Calophyllum brasiliense L Blolly Guapira discolor* M Bridalveil Tree Caesalpinia granadillo M Bulnesia Bulnesia arboria M Cinnecord Acacia choriophylla * U, SG 6 S Group ‘A’ Plant List for Single Family Homes Common Name Botanical Name Uses Mature Tree Size Citrus: Lemon, Citrus spp. OH S (except orange, Lime ect. Grapefruit) Citrus: Grapefruit Citrus paradisi M Trees Copperpod Peltophorum pterocarpum L Fiddlewood Citharexylum fruticosum * U, SG 8 S Floss Silk Tree Chorisia speciosa L Golden – Shower Cassia fistula L Green Buttonwood Conocarpus erectus * L Gumbo Limbo Bursera simaruba * L
    [Show full text]
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP
    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report
    Appendix F3 Rare Plant Survey Report Draft CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared for May 2011 Santa Margarita Water District Draft CADIZ VALLEY WATER CONSERVATION, RECOVERY, AND STORAGE PROJECT Rare Plant Survey Report Prepared for May 2011 Santa Margarita Water District 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.599.4300 www.esassoc.com Oakland Olympia Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills D210324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project: Rare Plant Survey Report Page Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Description .....................................................................................2 Setting ................................................................................................................................... 5 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5 Topography and Soils ......................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • A Hydromechanical and Biochemical Model of Stomatal Conductance
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKPCEPlant, Cell and Environment0016-8025Blackwell Science Ltd 2003? 2003 261017671785 Original Article Stomatal model T. N. Buckley et al. Plant, Cell and Environment (2003) 26, 1767–1785 A hydromechanical and biochemical model of stomatal conductance T. N. BUCKLEY1, K. A. MOTT2 & G. D. FARQUHAR1 1Environmental Biology Group and Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting, Research School of Biological Sciences, The Australian National University, GPO Box 475, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia and 2Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322–5305, USA ABSTRACT mimic. This limits their usefulness as tools for probing sto- matal and leaf functioning and constrains the confidence A mathematical model of stomatal conductance is pre- with which their predictions can be extended to future cli- sented. It is based on whole-plant and epidermal hydrome- mates. To address these limitations, several authors have chanics, and on two hypotheses: (1) the osmotic gradient attempted recently to model g in a more mechanistically across guard cell membranes is proportional to the concen- explicit fashion (e.g. Dewar 2002; Gao et al. 2002). However, tration of ATP in the guard cells; and (2) the osmotic gra- those models were based on assumptions about epidermal dient that can be sustained per unit of ATP is proportional water relations and stomatal hydromechanics that are incon- to the turgor pressure of adjacent epidermal cells. In the sistent with recent experiments and they calculated guard present study, guard cell [ATP] is calculated using a previ- cell osmotic pressure (pg) from irradiance or photosynthetic ously published model that is based on a widely used variables in a phenomenological fashion, much like the mesophyll photosynthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Eco-Physiological Responses to Multiple Environmental and Climate Changes
    INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGY FACULTY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Plant eco-physiological responses to multiple environmental and climate changes Ph. D. Thesis By Kristian Rost Albert Supervisors: Helge Ro-Poulsen1 and Teis N. Mikkelsen2 1Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, 2Biosystems department, Risø DTU 16-03-2009 Preface This thesis on plant eco-physiological responses to multiple environmental and climate changes is the result of a three year ph.d project at Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen and the Biosystems Department at RISØ-DTU. The studies have been interrupted by a two weeks maternity leave and 9 month research assistant position at the Biosystems department at RISØ-DTU. My supervisors Helge Ro-Poulsen and Teis N. Mikkelsen were always helpful with ideas, resources, and feedback when ever needed. In line with my supervisors I would like to express my gratitude to Anders Michelsen giving me extraordinary feedback all the way. I have been very fortunate to be a part of the physiological ecology research group that has been my scientific playground and room for many fruitful discussions. Thanks to Esben Vedel Nielsen, Gosha Sylvester, Niels Bruun, Karna Heinsen, Karin Larsen and Svend Danbæk for help with laboratory and IT work. In the CLIMAITE project group I have experienced a unique interdisciplinary teamwork of researchers in an open minded atmosphere, combined with ambitions and common research goals. This has been a platform for development, research and teamwork, and I have felt to be part of a research effort pushing insight far further than individually studies could have done. Thanks to all CLIMAITE members, the ph.d group and in particular thanks to project leader Claus Beier providing trust and resources into this ph.d project.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Stomatal Conductance in the Earth System 4 Discussion G
    Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Open Access Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 7, 3085–3159, 2014 Geoscientific www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/7/3085/2014/ doi:10.5194/gmdd-7-3085-2014 Model Development GMDD Discussions © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. 7, 3085–3159, 2014 This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Geoscientific Model Modeling stomatal Development (GMD). Please refer to the corresponding final paper in GMD if available. conductance in the Earth system Modeling stomatal conductance in the G. B. Bonan et al. Earth system: linking leaf water-use efficiency and water transport along the Title Page soil-plant-atmosphere continuum Abstract Introduction Conclusions References 1 2 1 1 G. B. Bonan , M. Williams , R. A. Fisher , and K. W. Oleson Tables Figures 1National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, Colorado, 80307, USA 2 School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK J I Received: 2 April 2014 – Accepted: 20 April 2014 – Published: 7 May 2014 J I Correspondence to: G. B. Bonan ([email protected]) Back Close Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion 3085 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Abstract GMDD The empirical Ball–Berry stomatal conductance model is commonly used in Earth sys- tem models to simulate biotic regulation of evapotranspiration. However, the depen- 7, 3085–3159,
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating Canopy Stomatal Conductance from Eddy Covariance Measurements, in Light of the Energy Budget Closure Problem Richard Wehr1, Scott
    https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-154 Preprint. Discussion started: 13 May 2020 c Author(s) 2020. CC BY 4.0 License. Calculating Canopy Stomatal Conductance from Eddy Covariance Measurements, in Light of the Energy Budget Closure Problem Richard Wehr1, Scott. R. Saleska1 1Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 85721, U.S.A. 5 Correspondence to: Richard Wehr ([email protected]) Abstract. Canopy stomatal conductance (gsV) is commonly estimated from eddy covariance (EC) measurements of latent heat flux (LE) by inverting the Penman-Monteith (PM) equation. That method implicitly represents the sensible heat flux (H) as the residual of all other terms in the site energy budget — even though H is measured at least as accurately as LE at every EC site while the rest of the energy budget almost never is. We argue that gsV should instead be calculated from EC 10 measurements of both H and LE, using the flux-gradient formulation that defines conductance and underlies the PM equation. The flux-gradient formulation dispenses with unnecessary assumptions, is conceptually simpler, and provides more accurate values of gsV for all plausible scenarios in which the measured energy budget fails to close, as is common at EC sites. The PM equation, on the other hand, contributes biases and erroneous spatial and temporal patterns to gsV, skewing its relationships with drivers such as light and vapor pressure deficit. To minimize the impact of the energy budget closure 15 problem on the PM equation, it was previously proposed that the eddy fluxes should be corrected to close the long-term energy budget while preserving the Bowen ratio (B = H/LE).
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List
    Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List Lake Havasu City Recommended Landscaping Plant List Disclaimer Lake Havasu City has revised the recommended landscaping plant list. This new list consists of plants that can be adapted to desert environments in the Southwestern United States. This list only contains water conscious species classified as having very low, low, and low-medium water use requirements. Species that are classified as having medium or higher water use requirements were not permitted on this list. Such water use classification is determined by the type of plant, its average size, and its water requirements compared to other plants. For example, a large tree may be classified as having low water use requirements if it requires a low amount of water compared to most other large trees. This list is not intended to restrict what plants residents choose to plant in their yards, and this list may include plant species that may not survive or prosper in certain desert microclimates such as those with lower elevations or higher temperatures. In addition, this list is not intended to be a list of the only plants allowed in the region, nor is it intended to be an exhaustive list of all desert-appropriate plants capable of surviving in the region. This list was created with the intention to help residents, businesses, and landscapers make informed decisions on which plants to landscape that are water conscious and appropriate for specific environmental conditions. Lake Havasu City does not require the use of any or all plants found on this list. List Characteristics This list is divided between trees, shrubs, groundcovers, vines, succulents and perennials.
    [Show full text]
  • Patchy Stomatal Conductance: Emergent Collective Behaviour of Stomata Keith A
    trends in plant science Reviews 40 Satterlee, J.S. and Sussman, M.R. (1997) An Arabidopsis phosphatidylinositol 4- 51 Drøbak, B.K. et al. (1991) Metabolism of inositol (1,4,5) trisphosphate by a soluble phosphate 5-kinase homolog with seven novel repeats rich in aromatic and glycine enzyme fraction from pea (Pisum sativum) roots. Plant Physiol. 95, 412–419 residues (Accession no. AF01938) (PGR 97–150). Plant Physiol. 115, 864 52 Gillaspy, G.E. et al. (1995) Plant inositol monophosphatase is a lithium- 41 Franklin-Tong, V.E. et al. (1996) Growth of pollen tubes of Papaver rhoeas sensitive enzyme encoded by a multigene family. Plant Cell 7, 2175–2185 is regulated by a slow-moving calcium wave propagated by inositol 53 York, J.D. et al. (1999) A phospholipase C-dependent inositol polyphosphate 1,4,5-trisphosphate. Plant Cell 8, 1305–1321 kinase pathway required for efficient messenger RNA export. Science 285, 96–100 42 Perera, I.Y. et al. (1999) Transient and sustained increases in inositol 54 Loewus, F. and Murthy, P.P. (2000) myo-Inositol metabolism in plants. Plant 1,4,5-trisphosphate precede the differential growth response in gravistimulated Sci. 150, 1–19 maize pulvini. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 5838–5843 55 Staxen, I. et al. (1999) Abscisic acid induces oscillations in guard-cell 43 Rosen, E. et al. (1999) Root gravitropism: a complex response to a simple cytosolic free calcium that involve phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase C. stimulus? Trends Plant Sci. 4, 407–412 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List
    Arizona Department of Water Resources Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Official Regulatory List for the Phoenix Active Management Area Fourth Management Plan Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 West Washington St. Ste. 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 www.azwater.gov 602-771-8585 Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Acknowledgements The Phoenix AMA list was prepared in 2004 by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in cooperation with the Landscape Technical Advisory Committee of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, comprised of experts from the Desert Botanical Garden, the Arizona Department of Transporation and various municipal, nursery and landscape specialists. ADWR extends its gratitude to the following members of the Plant List Advisory Committee for their generous contribution of time and expertise: Rita Jo Anthony, Wild Seed Judy Mielke, Logan Simpson Design John Augustine, Desert Tree Farm Terry Mikel, U of A Cooperative Extension Robyn Baker, City of Scottsdale Jo Miller, City of Glendale Louisa Ballard, ASU Arboritum Ron Moody, Dixileta Gardens Mike Barry, City of Chandler Ed Mulrean, Arid Zone Trees Richard Bond, City of Tempe Kent Newland, City of Phoenix Donna Difrancesco, City of Mesa Steve Priebe, City of Phornix Joe Ewan, Arizona State University Janet Rademacher, Mountain States Nursery Judy Gausman, AZ Landscape Contractors Assn. Rick Templeton, City of Phoenix Glenn Fahringer, Earth Care Cathy Rymer, Town of Gilbert Cheryl Goar, Arizona Nurssery Assn. Jeff Sargent, City of Peoria Mary Irish, Garden writer Mark Schalliol, ADOT Matt Johnson, U of A Desert Legum Christy Ten Eyck, Ten Eyck Landscape Architects Jeff Lee, City of Mesa Gordon Wahl, ADWR Kirti Mathura, Desert Botanical Garden Karen Young, Town of Gilbert Cover Photo: Blooming Teddy bear cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii) at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monutment.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMELINACEAE 鸭跖草科 Ya Zhi Cao Ke Hong Deyuan (洪德元)1; Robert A
    Flora of China 24: 19–39. 2000. COMMELINACEAE 鸭跖草科 ya zhi cao ke Hong Deyuan (洪德元)1; Robert A. DeFilipps2 Herbs annual or perennial, sometimes woody at base. Stems with prominent nodes and internodes. Leaves alternate, distichous or spirally arranged, sessile or petiolate; leaf sheath prominent, open or closed; leaf blade simple, entire. Inflorescence usually of cin- cinni in panicles or solitary, sometimes shortened into heads, sometimes sessile with flowers fascicled, sometimes axillary and pene- trating enveloping leaf sheath, rarely flowers solitary and terminal or axillary. Flowers bisexual, rarely unisexual, actinomorphic or zygomorphic. Sepals 3, free or connate only at base, often boat-shaped or carinate, sometimes galeate at apex. Petals (2 or)3, free, sometimes connate and tubular at middle and free at 2 ends (Cyanotis), sometimes clawed. Stamens 6, free, all or only 2 or 3 fertile; filaments glabrous or torulose villous; anthers parallel or slightly divergent, longitudinally dehiscent, rarely dehiscent by apical pores; staminodes 1–3; antherodes 4-lobed and butterflylike, 3-sect, 2-lobed and dumbbell-shaped, or entire. Ovary 3-loculed, or reduced to 2-loculed; ovules 1 to several per locule, orthotropous. Fruit a loculicidal, 2- or 3-valved capsule, rarely baccate and indehiscent. Seeds few, large; endosperm copious; hilum orbicular or linear. About 40 genera and 650 species: mainly in tropical regions, fewer species in subtropical and temperate regions; 15 genera (two introduced) and 59 species (12 endemic, three introduced) in China. Hong Deyuan. 1997. Commelinaceae. In: Wu Kuo-fang, ed., Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 13(3): 69–133. 1a. Inflorescence penetrating leaf sheath, sessile, capitate; fertile stamens 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Qt177042z5.Pdf
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title Sensitivity of olive leaf turgor to air vapour pressure deficit correlates with diurnal maximum stomatal conductance Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/177042z5 Authors Rodriguez-Dominguez, CM Hernandez-Santana, V Buckley, TN et al. Publication Date 2019-07-15 DOI 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.04.006 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 272–273 (2019) 156–165 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet Sensitivity of olive leaf turgor to air vapour pressure deficit correlates with diurnal maximum stomatal conductance T ⁎ C.M. Rodriguez-Domingueza, , V. Hernandez-Santanaa, T.N. Buckleyb, J.E. Fernándeza, A. Diaz-Espejoa a Irrigation and Crop Ecophysiology Group, Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Sevilla (IRNAS, CSIC), Avenida Reina Mercedes, 10, 41012, Sevilla, Spain b Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Effective study and management of crops and forests would benefit greatly from useful plant-based indicators of Plant water stress indicator the biological controls on evapotranspiration, and particularly stomatal conductance (gs). Given the strong in- Leaf turgor pressure fluence of gs on bulk leaf water potential and turgor pressure (P), in vivo measurement of P may provide useful Stomatal conductance information about diurnal or seasonal dynamics of gs. Moderate plant water stress affects the diurnal dynamics of Olive P as leaf-to-air vapour pressure deficit (D) varies, and these dynamics correlate to g .
    [Show full text]