Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 16665866

Do Stomata Respond to CO(2) Concentrations Other Than Intercellular?

Overview
Journal Plant Physiol
Specialty Physiology
Date 1988 Jan 1
PMID 16665866
Citations 48
Authors
K A Mott
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Most studies on stomatal responses to CO(2) assume that guard cells respond only to intercellular CO(2) concentration and are insensitive to the CO(2) concentrations in the pore and outside the leaf. If stomata are sensitive to the CO(2) concentration at the surface of the leaf or in the stomatal pore, the stomatal response to intercellular CO(2) concentration will be incorrect for a ;normally' operating leaf (where ambient CO(2) concentration is a constant). In this study asymmetric CO(2) concentrations for the two surfaces of amphistomatous leaves were used to vary intercellular and leaf surface CO(2) concentrations independently in Xanthium strumarium L. and Helianthus annuus L. The response of stomata to intercellular CO(2) concentration when the concentration at the leaf surface was held constant was found to be the same as the response when the surface concentration was varied. In addition, stomata did not respond to changes in leaf surface CO(2) concentration when the intercellular concentration for that surface was held constant. It is concluded that stomata respond to intercellular CO(2) concentration and are insensitive to the CO(2) concentration at the surface of the leaf and in the stomatal pore.

Citing Articles

Fast stomatal kinetics in sorghum enable tight coordination with photosynthetic responses to dynamic light intensity and safeguard high water use efficiency.

Battle M, Vialet-Chabrand S, Kasznicki P, Simkin A, Lawson T J Exp Bot. 2024; 75(21):6796-6809.

PMID: 39292501 PMC: 11565209. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erae389.

Illuminating stomatal responses to red light: establishing the role of Ci-dependent versus -independent mechanisms in control of stomatal behaviour.

Taylor G, Walter J, Kromdijk J J Exp Bot. 2024; 75(21):6810-6822.

PMID: 38442206 PMC: 11565200. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erae093.

A comparison of stomatal conductance responses to blue and red light between C3 and C4 photosynthetic species in three phylogenetically-controlled experiments.

Bernardo E, Sales C, Cubas L, Vath R, Kromdijk J Front Plant Sci. 2023; 14:1253976.

PMID: 37828928 PMC: 10565490. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1253976.

Stomatal responses of terrestrial plants to global change.

Liang X, Wang D, Ye Q, Zhang J, Liu M, Liu H Nat Commun. 2023; 14(1):2188.

PMID: 37069185 PMC: 10110556. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37934-7.

A role for ethylene signaling and biosynthesis in regulating and accelerating CO - and abscisic acid-mediated stomatal movements in Arabidopsis.

Azoulay-Shemer T, Schulze S, Nissan-Roda D, Bosmans K, Shapira O, Weckwerth P New Phytol. 2023; 238(6):2460-2475.

PMID: 36994603 PMC: 10259821. DOI: 10.1111/nph.18918.

References
1.
Farquhar G, Dubbe D, Raschke K . Gain of the feedback loop involving carbon dioxide and stomata: theory and measurement. Plant Physiol. 1978; 62(3):406-12. PMC: 1092136. DOI: 10.1104/pp.62.3.406. View
2.
Wong S, Cowan I, Farquhar G . Leaf Conductance in Relation to Assimilation in Eucalyptus pauciflora Sieb. ex Spreng: Influence of Irradiance and Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide. Plant Physiol. 1978; 62(4):670-4. PMC: 1092192. DOI: 10.1104/pp.62.4.670. View
3.
Sharkey T, Raschke K . Separation and measurement of direct and indirect effects of light on stomata. Plant Physiol. 1981; 68(1):33-40. PMC: 425884. DOI: 10.1104/pp.68.1.33. View
4.
Mott K, Oleary J . Stomatal Behavior and CO(2) Exchange Characteristics in Amphistomatous Leaves. Plant Physiol. 1984; 74(1):47-51. PMC: 1066622. DOI: 10.1104/pp.74.1.47. View