Plant Physiol. Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Plant Physiology 59:384-387 (1977)
© 1977 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Van Volkenburgh, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Van Volkenburgh, E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, D. T.
Right arrow Articles by Van Volkenburgh, E.
Articles

Photosynthesis in Relation to Leaf Characteristics of Cotton from Controlled and Field Environments 1

David T. Patterson, James A. Bunce, Randall S. Alberte2,3 and Elizabeth Van Volkenburgh4

a Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706

In situ and light-saturated net photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area were greater in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants grown in pots in the field than in similar plants from a phytotron growth chamber. Light-saturated stomatal resistances did not differ in leaves of similar age and exposure on field and chamber plants; lower photosynthetic rates in chamber leaves were associated with greater mesophyll resistance. Differences in net photosynthetic rates were related to differences in leaf thickness. When the photosynthetic rates were expressed per unit of mesophyll volume or per unit chlorophyll differences between field and chamber plants were much less than when rates were expressed per unit leaf area. Characterization of the chloroplast lamellar proteins showed that the field leaves had smaller photosynthetic units than the chamber leaves. Since the field leaves also contained more chlorophyll per unit area, this resulted in a much larger number of photosynthetic units per unit area in the field leaves.


2 Supported by a National Science Foundation Energy-Related Postdoctoral Fellowship.

3 Permanent address: Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif. 90024

4 Present address: Department of Botany, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 98105

1 This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant GI-39229 (RANN).







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1977 by the American Society of Plant Biologists