+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Physiological comparisons of two soybean cultivars differing in canopy photosynthesis. II. Variation in specific leaf weight, nitrogen, and protein components



Physiological comparisons of two soybean cultivars differing in canopy photosynthesis. II. Variation in specific leaf weight, nitrogen, and protein components



Photosynthesis Research 9(3): 295-304



Cultivar differences in canopy apparent photosynthesis (CAP) have been observed in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) but little is known about the physiological mechanisms which are responsible for such differences. This study was initiated to determine if variation in ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (RuBPCase) and soluble protein exists among cultivars which differ in CAP during reproductive growth. In addition, the relationship between specific leaf weight (SLW) and leaf protein was examined. Two Maturity Group VI cultivars, 'Tracy' (high CAP) and 'Davis' (low CAP), were grown in the field during 1979, 1980, and 1981 and in a greenhouse experiment. Leaves located at two canopy positions (topmost, fully expanded leaf and eighth node from the top) in 1979 and three canopy positions (those mentioned, plus the fourth node from the top) in 1980 and 1981 were sampled. Leaves at the two upper canopy positions exhibited greater SLW, RuBPCase m(-2), and soluble protein m(-2) than found at the eighth node down. Photosynthetic capacity of leaves at inner canopy regions was therefore affected by both light penetration into the canopy and leaf protein status. Over the three year period, the SLW was 23 percent and the soluble protein m(-2) leaf 21 percent greater in Tracy than in Davis. Although the trend in RuBPCase m(-2) leaf was not significant, it was consistently greater in Tracy in the field and greenhouse. No cultivar differences were observed when the proteins were expressed on a unit of leaf dry weight. The quantity of RuBPCase per unit leaf area was positively correlated with SLW with significant partial correlation coefficients of 0.62, 0.67, 0.35, and 0.82 for 1979, 1980, 1981, and the greenhouse study, respectively. Since these cultivars have similar leaf area indices during September, the greater SLW of Tracy is translated into more photosynthetic proteins per unit ground area and higher CAP rate.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055001535

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24442362

DOI: 10.1007/bf00029795


Related references

Physiological comparisons of two soybean cultivars differing in canopy photosynthesis. I. Variation in vertical (14)CO 2 labelling and dry weight partitioning. Photosynthesis Research 9(3): 285-294, 1986

Canopy photosynthesis, specific leaf weight, and yield components of cotton under varying nitrogen supply. Journal of plant nutrition4(3): 469-477, 2001

Leaf ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase, soluble protein, and nitrogen of soybean genotypes with differing canopy photosynthetic rates. Agronomy Abstracts 72nd annual meeting, American Society of Agronomy: 94, 1980

Comparisons of physiological and anatomical characteristics between two cultivars in bi-leader apple trees ( Malus domestica Borkh.) 1 1Abbreviations: Chl, chlorophyll; DABB, days after bud break; Gs, stomatal conductance; leaf, leaf water potential; MD, midday leaf water potential; PD, pre-dawn leaf water potential; LEC, lower epidermis cell; PPFD, photosynthetic photon flux density; Pn, net photosynthesis rate; Sd, stomatal density; SLW, specific leaf weight; UEC, upper epidermi. Scientia Horticulturae 231: 73-81, 2018

Leaf and canopy apparent photosynthesis comparisons and the relation of each to soybean cultivar yield. Agronomy Abstracts: 80, 1977

Relationship between leaf movement of trifoliolate compound leaf and environmental factors in the soybean canopy: III. Comparisons of micro-environments between the rice and soybean canopy. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 63(3): 480-488, 1994

Inter-relationship of leaf photosynthesis, specific leaf weight and leaf anatomical characters in soybean. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 1(1): 6-9, 1996

Changes in leaf area, nitrogen content and canopy photosynthesis in soybean exposed to an ozone concentration gradient. Environmental Pollution 215: 347-355, 2016

Effects of Vertical Gradient of Leaf Nitrogen Content on Canopy Photosynthesis in Tall and Dwarf Cultivars of Sorghum. Plant Production Science 18(3): 336-343, 2015

Leaf and canopy photosynthesis of C3 plants at elevated CO2 in relation to optimal partitioning of nitrogen among photosynthetic components: Theoretical prediction. Ecological Modelling 106(2-3): 247-259, 1998

Microclimate, canopy structure and photosynthesis in canopies of three contrasting temperate forage grasses. iII. canopy photosynthesis, individual leaf photosynthesis, individual leaf photosynthesis and the distribution of current assimilate. Annals of botany: 41 (173) 593-604, 1977

A model of dynamics of leaves and nitrogen in a plant canopy: an integration of canopy photosynthesis, leaf life span, and nitrogen use efficiency. American Naturalist 162(2): 149-164, 2003

An empirical model that uses light attenuation and plant nitrogen status to predict within-canopy nitrogen distribution and upscale photosynthesis from leaf to whole canopy. Aob Plants 7:, 2015

The relationship between leaf nitrogen specific leaf weight photosynthetic rate and canopy position in spur leaves of apple. Hortscience 23(3 SECT 2): 744, 1988

Effects of canopy light distribution characteristics and leaf nitrogen content on efficiency of radiation use in dry matter accumulation of soybean cultivars. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 63(1): 1-8, 1994