Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T04:55:23.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Epiphytes and hemiepiphytes have slower photosynthetic response to lightflecks than terrestrial plants: evidence from ferns and figs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Qiang Zhang*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China College of Life Science, Key Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental Science in Guangdong Higher Education, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
Jun-Wen Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China
Bao-Gui Li
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China
Kun-Fang Cao*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China
*
1Corresponding authors. Emails: zhangq2008@msn.com; caokf@xtbg.ac.cn
1Corresponding authors. Emails: zhangq2008@msn.com; caokf@xtbg.ac.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Photosynthetic responses of 12 species including six fern species (Neottopteris nidus, Microsorum punctatum, Pseudodrynaria coronans, Asplenium finlaysonianum, Paraleptochilus decurrens and Tectaria fauriei) and seedlings of six fig species (Ficus curtipes, F. gibbosa, F. altissima, F. auriculata, F. oligodon and F. hookeriana) in different life forms to lightfleck were investigated, to test whether epiphytes and hemiepiphytes display a slower response to lightfleck and fast induction loss after a lightfleck compared with their terrestrial counterparts, and whether ferns display a slower response to lightfleck and slower induction loss compared to figs. The measurements of functional traits and physiological parameters were determined in a screenhouse of 4% full sunlight. Epiphytic ferns and hemiepiphytic figs had thicker leaves compared with their terrestrial counterparts. Compared with figs, ferns had thicker fronds, larger stomata with a low density, and lower stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity; ferns had lower light compensation point and dark respiration rate, conferring a positive carbon gain under low diffuse light beneath the canopy. The induction time to reach 90% maximum net photosynthetic rate (T90) upon the exposure to a saturated light varied strongly among life forms. Epiphytic ferns had slower T90 than terrestrial ferns (19.9–26.3 vs 5.9–16.3 min, respectively), and hemiepiphytic figs had slower T90 than terrestrial figs (13.1–20.4 vs 5.2–7.8 min, respectively). Compared with figs, ferns showed a slower response to lightfleck. Across ferns and figs, the induction time was negatively correlated with initial stomatal conductance. No significant difference in induction loss was found between two life forms within ferns or figs, whereas ferns had a significantly slower induction loss compared with figs. These results showed that the inherent conservative water use strategy of the epiphytes and hemiepiphytes constrain their lightfleck utilization.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

INTRODUCTION

Plants growing in a forest understorey experience extreme fluctuations in light conditions, as long periods of low diffuse light alternate with brief, unpredictable periods of high light during sunflecks. The period of high light can last for a few seconds to several minutes or even longer, and contributes 10–80% of daily photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) received by understorey plants (Chazdon Reference CHAZDON1988). Photosynthetic carbon gain during sunflecks contributes substantially to carbon balance of understorey plants. Upon receiving a sunfleck, understorey leaves increase their photosynthesis from very low to high rates, which is called photosynthetic induction (Chazdon & Pearcy Reference CHAZDON and PEARCY1986a, Pearcy Reference PEARCY1990). Photosynthetic induction involves the increase in the activity of Rubisco, regeneration of RuBP and stomatal opening. The biochemical activation is much quicker compared with the stomatal opening process. When the leaf is shaded after sunflecks, the fast-induction component deactivates rapidly, while the slow-induction component (i.e. stomatal closure) deactivates slowly (Pearcy Reference PEARCY1990, Pons et al. Reference PONS, PEARCY and SEEMANN1992). Maintaining photosynthetic induction after lightflecks affects the responses of leaves to subsequent sunflecks.

Apart from light instability, water limitation also constrains performance of epiphytes, as they usually occupy microhabitats that dry rapidly. Although many vascular epiphytes live in the microhabitats in the lower storeys of the forests, some members of this plant group, especially the so-called ‘bark epiphytes’ that completely lack canopy soil, are subject to frequent water shortage (Benzing Reference BENZING1990). Therefore, drought stress is a strong selection pressure for the epiphytes. Furthermore, insufficient water supply might limit stomatal conductance and further influence the use of sunflecks. Ferns, as a plant group, possess simply branched, occasionally reticulate vascular networks to irrigate fronds (henceforth leaves). Angiosperm leaves commonly utilize xylem vessels in the lower vein orders, which are absent from fern leaves (Carlquist & Schneider Reference CARLQUIST and SCHNEIDER2001). This great variation in vascular system between ferns and angiosperms affects the hydraulic conductance of the leaves (Sack & Frole Reference SACK and FROLE2006), and thus affects the performance in term of gas exchanges (Brodribb et al. Reference BRODRIBB, FEILD and JORDAN2007). However, whether the great variation in vascular system in leaves between ferns and angiosperms affects their lightfleck utilization is poorly understood.

Hemiepiphytic plants grow as true epiphytes at their initial life stage, and then become terrestrial through aerial roots that grow from the canopy to the ground (Patiño et al. Reference PATIÑO, GILBERT, ZOTZ and TYREE1999). They make a soil connection for only a portion of their life cycle, presenting a life form between an epiphyte and a terrestrial plant. Hemiepiphytes are common in Ficus (Moraceae) and Clusia (Clusiaceae). The best known hemiepiphytes are the strangler figs. Approximately 500 fig species are classified as hemiepiphytes, commonly occurring in humid tropical regions in the world (Putz & Holbrook Reference PUTZ and HOLBROOK1986). Like epiphytic ferns, hemiepiphytic figs are also subjected to a higher selection pressure of frequent water deficit during their initial life stage than their later ones, owing to water and minerals being less accessible for hemiepiphytic plants than for terrestrial ones. Therefore, hemiepiphytic plants may continue with a water conservation strategy even after becoming rooted in the ground, which potentially affects the efficiency of lightfleck use.

In this study, the measurements were made of photosynthetic traits, photosynthetic induction in response to simulated lightflecks, and induction loss after a lightfleck in a range of epiphytic and terrestrial ferns, and hemiepiphytic and terrestrial figs. The following two hypotheses were tested: (1) the epiphytes or hemiepiphytes display slower responses to lightflecks and faster induction loss after a lightfleck compared with their terrestrial counterparts; and (2) fern species present slower responses to a lightfleck and slower induction loss after a lightfleck compared with fig species.

METHODS

Study site and plants

This study was carried out at the Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (21°41′N, 101°25′E, altitude 600 m), Chinese Academy of Sciences, southern Yunnan, south-west China. The mean annual temperature is 21.6°C, and the annual precipitation is about 1560 mm. Twelve species were chosen for the study, including three epiphytic fern species (Neottopteris nidus (L.) J. Sm. (synonym Asplenium nidus L.) (Aspleniaceae), Microsorum punctatum (L.) Copel. (Polypodiaceae) and Pseudodrynaria coronans (Wall. ex Mett.) Ching (Polypodiaceae)), three terrestrial fern species (Asplenium finlaysonianum Wall. ex Hook. (Aspleniaceae), Paraleptochilus decurrens (Blume) Copel. (Polypodiaceae), and Tectaria fauriei Tagawa (Aspidiaceae)), three hemiepiphytic fig species (Ficus curtipes Corner, Ficus gibbosa Bl. and Ficus altissima Bl.), and three terrestrial fig species (Ficus auriculata Lour., Ficus oligodon Miq. and Ficus hookeriana Corner). Ferns were collected from a nearby nature reserve and then cultivated in a screenhouse of 4% full sunlight for adaption for 1 y. The screenhouse was constructed with neutral shade netting supplying irradiance of 4% daylight. The relative irradiance under the shade plots were estimated by integrating PPFD under the shade plots compared with that in a fully open site over a clear day in the summer. The PPFD was measured with Li-190SA quantum sensors connected to a Li-1400 data logger (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). Seeds of the six fig species were collected from mature trees planted in the botanical garden, and were germinated in plastic pots (30 cm height and internal diameter) in soils obtained from a tropical rain forest. The potted fig seedlings were also placed in the same screenhouse for 4 mo, watered as needed. When our physiological measurements were made, the ferns were about 35–80 cm high, and the fig seedlings were about 40–60 cm high. All measurements were made on the new fully developed leaves in the screenhouse at ambient temperature, with relative humidity 80–90%.

Leaf structure and chlorophyll concentration

Leaf anatomy and chlorophyll concentration (Chl) were measured on a mature leaf from each of six plants per species. Leaves were sampled and each leaf was then cut into two parts along the midrib. One half of the leaf was used to determine chlorophyll concentration with extraction by 95% ethanol (Lichtenthaler & Wellburn Reference LICHTENTHALER and WELLBURN1983). The area of another half was measured with a portable leaf area meter (LI-3000A, LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). Leaf segments were dried at 80 °C for 48 h and then leaf mass per unit area (LMA) was calculated. Leaf thickness (LT) was measured on hand-cut transverse sections with a light microscope. Stomatal density (SD) and guard cell length (GCL) were measured on epidermal impressions made with colourless nail polish. At least three fields of each of six leaves from six plants per species were observed.

Gas exchange

Gas exchange was measured in the morning (08h00–11h30) September–October 2006 to avoid possible midday and afternoon depression, using an infrared gas analyser (LI-6400, LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). For each species, five to six fully expanded mature leaves from different plants were selected for the measurements. Photosynthetic light response curves were measured with PPFD descending from high to low light. The fern leaves were illuminated with 300 μmol m−2 s−1 PPFD for at least 30 min, and fig species 700 μmol m−2 s−1 for at least 20 min before measurements. CO2 concentration inside the leaf chamber was maintained at 380 μmol mol−1 through the integrated CO2 controlling system of the gas analyser. Mean relative air humidity was 80% ± 5%. According to the method described by Bassman & Zwier (Reference BASSMAN and ZWIER1991), we calculated the photosynthetic parameters: apparent quantum yield (AQY), dark respiration rate (R d), light compensation point (LCP), light saturation point (LSP), and maximum net photosynthetic rate (A max'). Intrinsic photosynthetic water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated as A max'/g s-max', where g s-max' is the maximum stomatal conductance obtained from the light response curve. Photosynthetic induction experiments were conducted on the leaves used for photosynthetic light response curves. The sampled leaves were shaded by a one-layer screen overnight until the measurements were made the next day, preventing leaves from being photosynthetically pre-induced. During the measurements, leaves were enclosed in the leaf chamber and illuminated with low light (approximately 20 μmol m−2 s−1) for at least 30 min. Photosynthetic rate under this low light (A d) was recorded after a steady state was reached. Afterwards, the leaf was exposed to a photosynthetically saturating PPFD determined from the light response curves, using an integrated LED light source. Net photosynthetic rate (A n) was recorded at 2-s intervals for the first 5 min, and then every 56 s until the stable maximum assimilation rate (A max) was achieved. The following parameters were determined: time to reach 50% (T 50) and 90% full induction (T 90), and the initial (gs-initial) and maximum stomatal conductance (gs-max). The T 50 and T 90 were estimated by fitting the curves with a sigmoidal equation (Zipperlen & Press Reference ZIPPERLEN and PRESS1997). The leaf was then shaded (approximately 20 μmol m−2 s−1 PPFD) for 20 min, and then was exposed to a saturating PPFD for 60 s and the net photosynthetic rate at 60 s (A) was determined. The induction state (IS60) after the 20-min darkness was calculated as IS60 = (AA d)/(A maxA d) (Chazdon & Pearcy Reference CHAZDON and PEARCY1986b).

Statistical analysis

The significances of the differences in the means between two life forms within ferns or figs were assessed by Student's t-test. The relationship between g s-max' and A max' was fitted by a linear regression, and between g s-initial and T 50 or T 90 were fitted by a double exponential decay equation.

RESULTS

Differences in leaf morphological and photosynthetic traits

The mean LMA (t34 = 4.17, P < 0.001), LT (t34 = 2.19, P < 0.05) and Chl (t34 = 4.74, P < 0.001) of the hemiepiphytic figs were significantly higher than those of the terrestrial figs, with no differences in mean SD and GCL between these two life forms (Table 1). Epiphytic and terrestrial ferns were similar in LMA and LT, with significantly lower Chl (t34 = −6.25, P < 0.001) in the former. The figs had higher LMA (t70 = −6.26, P < 0.001) and LT (t70 = −3.40, P < 0.001) but smaller and denser stomata than the ferns.

Table 1. Leaf traits of 12 species studied. Entries are mean ± SE from six individuals of each species. LMA, leaf mass per unit area; LT, leaf thickness; SD, stomatal density; GCL, guard cell length; Chl, chlorophyll concentration. Different letters indicate significant differences in the means between two plant types within figs or ferns.

Figs varied strongly in A max', g s-max', and LSP excepting LCP, AQY and R d (Table 2). Photosynthetic light response curves of the four representative species are shown in Figure 1. Epiphytic and terrestrial ferns were statistically different in A max' (t34 = 4.15, P < 0.001), g s-max' (t34 = −3.51, P < 0.01), LCP (t34 = 13.2, P < 0.001), and R d (t34 = −11.0, P < 0.001). The figs had significantly greater A max' (t70 = 11.7, P < 0.001), g s-max' (t70 = 9.48, P < 0.001), LCP (t70 = 3.42, P < 0.01), LSP (t70 = 8.88, P < 0.001), and R d (t70 = −3.35, P < 0.01) than the ferns. Epiphytic ferns and hemiepiphytic figs had higher WUE than the terrestrial plants (t70 = 12.7, 3.51; P < 0.001, 0.01. respectively), with no difference in WUE between ferns and figs (Table 2 and Figure 2).

Figure 1. Photosynthetic light response curves of fully mature leaves of the four representative species studied: the epiphytic fern Neottopteris nidus (●), the terrestrial fern Asplenium finlaysonianum (○), the hemiepiphytic fig Ficus altissima (◆) and the terrestrial fig Ficus oligodon (●). Data are mean ± SE (n = 6).

Table 2. Gas exchange parameters for the six fig and six fern species. Entries are mean ± SE from six individuals of each species. A max', maximum net photosynthetic rate; g s-max', maximum stomatal conductance recorded during the measurement of light response curve; WUE, water use efficiency; LCP, light compensation point; LSP, light saturation point; AQY, apparent quantum yield; R d, dark respiration rate. Different letters indicate significant differences in the means between two plant types within figs or ferns.

Figure 2. The relationships between maximum photosynthetic rate (A max') and maximum stomatal conductance (g s-max'). Each point is from one measurement of one plant per species (n = 6).

Induction time and induction loss

The time courses of photosynthetic induction in the four representative species of different life forms were shown in Figure 3. There was no significant difference in mean T 50 between the epiphytic and terrestrial ferns, whereas hemiepiphytic figs had lower mean T 50 than terrestrial figs (Table 3). The means of T 90 in the epiphytic ferns (19.8–26.3 min) and the hemiepiphytic figs (13.1–20.4 min) were significantly slower than that in the terrestrial ferns (5.9–16.3 min) and terrestrial figs (5.2–7.8 min), respectively. The figs had much faster induction responses compared with the ferns.

Figure 3. The response of net photosynthesis (A n; a), stomatal conductance (g s; b) and intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci; c) to a simulated lightfleck in the four representative species: the epiphytic fern Neottopteris nidus (●), the terrestrial fern Asplenium finlaysonianum (○), the hemiepiphytic fig Ficus altissima (◆) and the terrestrial fig Ficus oligodon (●). Typical data for a leaf are shown. Leaves were first exposed to 20 μmol photons m−2 s−1 until rates of gas exchange were steady; a simulated lightfleck was then imposed by increasing irradiance to the saturated light. The simulated lightfleck started at time 0.

Table 3. Photosynthetic induction parameters in six fig and six fern species. Data are means ± SE of time required to reach 50% (T 50) and 90% of maximum net photosynthetic rate (T 90), induction state (IS60) measured after 20 min of dark-adaption following the full induction, initial stomatal conductance (gs-initial) and maximum stomatal conductance (gs-max). The group means in one column with the same letter are not significantly different for either figs or ferns, respectively (P > 0.05).

The hemiepiphytic figs had much lower g s-initial compared to their terrestrial counterparts. Similarly, the epiphytic ferns had lower g s-initial than their terrestrial counterparts. g s-initial and T 50 or T 90 were negatively correlated when pooling data for 12 studied species. After g s-initial exceeded the threshold of 50 mmol m−2 s−1, it had no effect on T 50 (Figure 4a). This was not so between T 90 and g s-initial (Figure 4b). Although ferns had slow induction response, they tended to maintain higher photosynthetic induction state than the fig seedlings after full induction (Table 3).

Figure 4. The relationships between time required to reach 50% (T 50) (a) or 90% (T 90) (b) of the maximum net photosynthetic rate and the initial stomatal conductance under the low light (gs-initial) in the 12 species studied. The inset represents the relationship between T 50 and gs-initial when gs-initial is below 70 mmol H2O m−2 s−1.

DISCUSSION

By comparing leaf morphological traits and photosynthetic light induction responses across epiphytic ferns, hemiepiphytic figs, and their terrestrial counterparts, this study provided evidence of a trade-off between conserving water and maximizing carbon gain of these relatively less-investigated plant groups. Water conservation is more important for epiphytic and hemiepiphytic plants. Ferns and figs presented significant differences in stomatal regulation and photosynthetic light induction characteristics, probably resulting from the difference in their vascular system and hence hydraulic conductance.

Difference in leaf morphology between plant groups

Epiphytic ferns and hemiepiphytic figs had thicker leaves than their terrestrial counterparts (Table 1), consistent with previous studies (Holbrook & Putz Reference HOLBROOK and PUTZ1996, Watkins et al. Reference WATKINS, RUNDEL and CARDELUS2007). Thick and dense leaves favour epiphytes to adapt to drought-prone epiphytic habitats, reducing transpiration and increasing water use efficiency (Gratani & Bombelli Reference GRATANI and BOMBELLI2001). The ferns had larger and sparser stomata than figs (Table 1), consistent with other studies (Hietz & Briones Reference HIETZ and BRIONES1998, Holbrook & Putz Reference HOLBROOK and PUTZ1996). Ferns have low stomatal conductance and consequently low photosynthetic capacity in this study, as in other reports (Brodribb & Holbrook Reference BRODRIBB and HOLBROOK2004, Brodribb et al. Reference BRODRIBB, HOLBROOK, ZWIENIECKI and PALMA2005), which could result from the vascular system of ferns not being well developed to allow fast transpiration through dense stomata. However, low density of stomata might be favourable for epiphytic ferns to reduce transpirational water loss (Cao Reference CAO2000). Under low-light condition, ferns had lower LCP and R d than the figs, conferring a positive carbon gain.

Difference in photosynthetic induction time between plant groups

Epiphytes are prone to frequent water deficits, and their water use strategies are conservative. We hypothesized that the conservative water use strategy would influence their performance of lightfleck utilizations. Our results showed that the photosynthetic induction upon receiving lightflecks was slower in the epiphytic ferns and the hemiepiphytic figs compared with their terrestrial counterparts, and the induction time was negatively correlated with initial stomatal conductance, consistent with other studies (Bai et al. Reference BAI, LIAO, JIANG and CAO2008, Valladares et al. Reference VALLADARES, ALLEN and PEARCY1997). Because the time course of photosynthetic induction after 1 or 2 min is predominantly determined by stomatal conductance and Rubisco activation (Kirschbaum & Pearcy Reference KIRSCHBAUM and PEARCY1988, Pons et al. Reference PONS, PEARCY and SEEMANN1992), inter- and intra-specific differences in induction time are likely caused by differences in the dynamic responses of the slow-inducing component, stomatal opening. We found that epiphytes (or hemiepiphytes) had significantly lower gs-initial compared with their terrestrial counterparts under low light in the present study, which should account for the significant difference in the photosynthetic induction time between the groups in view of the relationships between T 90 and g s-intial (Figure 4). Carbon assimilation of epiphytic or hemiepiphytic plants is constrained by slow photosynthetic induction and low stomatal conductance, which reduce water loss and the risk of water deficits. As growing in the habitats with frequent water shortage, conserving water for survival is far more important for the epiphytic or hemiepiphytic plants than maximizing carbon assimilation to enhance growth.

Ferns showed slower responses to lightfleck and induction loss after a lightfleck compared with figs, probably due to higher water diffusive resistance and lower water transport capacity, and consequently slower stomatal opening and closing reactions in the leaf of ferns (Aasamaa et al. Reference AASAMAA, SOBER and RAHI2001, Brodribb et al. Reference BRODRIBB, HOLBROOK, ZWIENIECKI and PALMA2005, Sack & Holbrook Reference SACK and HOLBROOK2006). The range of stomatal movement in ferns is much lower than that in most terrestrial understorey herbs, shrubs and tree saplings (Allen & Pearcy Reference ALLEN and PEARCY2000, Chazdon & Pearcy Reference CHAZDON and PEARCY1986a, Pfitsch & Pearcy Reference PFITSCH and PEARCY1989, Valladares et al. Reference VALLADARES, ALLEN and PEARCY1997). Kaiser & Kappen (Reference KAISER and KAPPEN2000) suggested that the fine-tuning of stomatal conductance may require slow opening and closing reactions to avoid overshooting. This mechanism may also explain why our second expectation, a faster induction loss in ferns, was rejected. Lower rates of induction have also been reported for the epiphytic orchid Aspasia principissa (Zotz & Mikona Reference ZOTZ and MIKONA2003). T 90 in three epiphytic ferns and three hemiepiphytic figs in this study is slower than most understorey shrubs, herbs and saplings reported in the literature (< 10 min; Kursar & Coley Reference KURSAR and COLEY1993, Ögren & Sundin Reference ÖGREN and SUNDIN1996, Rijkers et al. Reference RIJKERS, DE VRIES, PONS and BONGERS2000, Roden & Pearcy Reference RODEN and PEARCY1993, Tang et al. Reference TANG, KOIZUMI, SATOH and IZUMI1994).

The epiphytes are not only adapted to drier conditions but also to the lower air CO2 concentration, as they usually grow higher up on the trunks and branches above the forest floor than the juveniles of their terrestrial counterparts. It is well known that there is a strong gradient in CO2 concentration in forest understoreys that persists through much of the morning. High CO2 concentration is known to increase intercellular CO2 concentration and to reduce the time required for photosynthetic induction, and thereby to increase carbon gain during sunflecks (Leakey et al. Reference LEAKEY, SCHOLES and PRESS2005). This increases the difference in both photosynthetic induction time and stomatal response to sunflecks between the epiphytic or hemiepiphytic and terrestrial plants under experimental conditions of this study.

In conclusion, the epiphytic ferns and hemiepiphytic figs exhibited water-conservation leaf structures, and much slower photosynthetic induction in response to lightflecks than their terrestrial counterparts. These differences in lightfleck use as well as other leaf functional traits may drive the coexistence of ferns and figs with different life forms in a tropical rain-forest community.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank our colleague Y.-J. Zhang for his useful suggestions on the manuscript. This work was supported by Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology through a grant (No. 2006CB403207) under a major 973 project and by West Light Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences through a grant to J.-L. Zhang.

References

LITERATURE CITED

AASAMAA, K., SOBER, A. & RAHI, M. 2001. Leaf anatomical characteristics associated with shoot hydraulic conductance, stomatal conductance and stomatal sensitivity to changes of leaf water status in temperate deciduous trees. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28:765774.Google Scholar
ALLEN, M. T. & PEARCY, R. W. 2000. Stomatal behavior and photosynthetic performance under dynamic light regimes in a seasonally dry tropical rain forest. Oecologia 122:470478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAI, K. D., LIAO, D. B., JIANG, D. B. & CAO, K. F. 2008. Photosynthetic induction in leaves of co-occurring Fagus lucida and Castanopsis lamontii saplings grown in contrasting light environments. Trees – Structure and Function 22:449462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASSMAN, J. & ZWIER, J. C. 1991. Gas exchange characteristics of Populus trichocarpa, Populus deltoids and Populus trichocarpa × trichocarpa clones. Tree Physiology 8:145149.Google Scholar
BENZING, D. H. 1990. Vascular epiphytes. General biology and related biota. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 354 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRODRIBB, T. J. & HOLBROOK, N. M. 2004. Stomatal protection against hydraulic failure: a comparison of coexisting ferns and angiosperms. New Phytologist 162:663670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BRODRIBB, T. J., HOLBROOK, N. M., ZWIENIECKI, M. A. & PALMA, B. 2005. Leaf hydraulic capacity in ferns, conifers and angiosperms: impacts on photosynthetic maxima. New Phytologist 165:839846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BRODRIBB, T. J., FEILD, T. S. & JORDAN, G. J. 2007. Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiology 144:18901898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAO, K. F. 2000. Water relations and gas exchange of tropical saplings during a prolonged drought in a Bornean heath forest, with reference to root architecture. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:101116.Google Scholar
CARLQUIST, S. & SCHNEIDER, E. L. 2001. Vessels in ferns: structural, ecological, and evolutionary significance. American Journal of Botany 88:113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CHAZDON, R. L. 1988. Sunflecks and their importance to forest understory plants. Advance of Ecological Research 18:162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAZDON, R. L. & PEARCY, R. W. 1986a. Photosynthetic responses to light variation in rainforest species. II. Carbon gain and photosynthetic efficiency during lightflecks. Oecologia 69:524531.Google ScholarPubMed
CHAZDON, R. L. & PEARCY, R. W. 1986b. Photosynthetic responses to light variation in rainforest species. I. Induction under constant and fluctuating light conditions. Oecologia 69:517523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GRATANI, L. & BOMBELLI, A. 2001. Differences in leaf traits among Mediterranean broad-leaved evergreen shrubs. Annales Botanici Fennici 38:1524.Google Scholar
HIETZ, P. & BRIONES, O. 1998. Correlation between water relations and within-canopy distribution of epiphytic ferns in a Mexican cloud forest. Oecologia 114:305316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOLBROOK, N. M. & PUTZ, F. E. 1996. Water relations of epiphytic and terrestrially-rooted strangler figs in a Venezuelan palm savanna. Oecologia 106:424431.Google Scholar
KAISER, H. & KAPPEN, L. 2000. In situ observation of stomatal movements and gas exchange of Aegopodium podagraria L. in the understorey. Journal of Experimental Botany 51:17411749.Google Scholar
KIRSCHBAUM, M. U. F. & PEARCY, R. W. 1988. Gas exchange analysis of the relative importance of stomatal and biochemical factors in photosynthetic induction in Alocasia macrorrhiza. Plant Physiology 86:782785.Google Scholar
KURSAR, T. A. & COLEY, P. D. 1993. Photosynthetic induction times in shade-tolerant species with long and short-lived leaves. Oecologia 93:165170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LEAKEY, A. D. B., SCHOLES, J. D. & PRESS, M. C. 2005. Physiological and ecological significance of sunflecks for dipterocarp seedlings. Journal of Experimental Botany 56:469482.Google Scholar
LICHTENTHALER, H. K. & WELLBURN, A. R. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophyll a and b of leaf extracts different solvents. Biochemical Society Transactions 603:591592.Google Scholar
ÖGREN, E. & SUNDIN, U. 1996. Photosynthetic response to variable light: a comparison of species from contrasting habitats. Oecologia 106:1827.Google Scholar
PATIÑO, S., GILBERT, G. S., ZOTZ, G. & TYREE, M. T. 1999. Growth and survival of aerial roots of hemiepiphytes in a lower montane tropical moist forest in Panama. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15:651665.Google Scholar
PEARCY, R. W. 1990. Sunflecks and photosynthesis in plant canopies. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 41:421453.Google Scholar
PFITSCH, W. A. & PEARCY, R. W. 1989. Steady-state and dynamic photosynthetic response of Adenocaulon bicolor (Asteraceae) in its redwood habitat. Oecologia 80:471476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PONS, T. L., PEARCY, R. W. & SEEMANN, J. R. 1992. Photosynthesis in flashing light in soybean leaves in different conditions. I. Photosynthetic induction state and regulation of ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase activity. Plant, Cell and Environment 15:569576.Google Scholar
PUTZ, F. E. & HOLBROOK, N. M. 1986. Notes on the natural history of hemiepiphytes. Selbyana 9:6169.Google Scholar
RIJKERS, T., DE VRIES, P. J., PONS, T. L. & BONGERS, F. 2000. Photosynthetic induction in saplings of three shade-tolerant tree species: comparing understorey and gap habitats in a French Guiana rain forest. Oecologia 125:331340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RODEN, J. S. & PEARCY, R. W. 1993. Photosynthetic gas exchange responses of poplars to steady-state and dynamic light environments. Oecologia 93:208214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SACK, L. & FROLE, K. 2006. Leaf structural diversity is related to hydraulic capacity in tropical rain forest trees. Ecology 87:483491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SACK, L. & HOLBROOK, N. M. 2006. Leaf hydraulics. Annual Review of Plant Biology 57:361381.Google Scholar
TANG, Y., KOIZUMI, H., SATOH, M. & IZUMI, W. 1994. Characteristics of transient photosynthesis in Quercus serrata seedlings grown under lightfleck and constant light regimes. Oecologia 100:463469.Google Scholar
VALLADARES, F., ALLEN, M. T. & PEARCY, R. W. 1997. Photosynthetic responses to dynamic light under field conditions in six tropical rainforest shrubs occurring along a light gradient. Oecologia 111:505514.Google Scholar
WATKINS, J. E., RUNDEL, P. W. & CARDELUS, C. L. 2007. The influence of life form on carbon and nitrogen relationships in tropical rainforest ferns. Oecologia 153:225232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ZIPPERLEN, S. W. & PRESS, M. C. 1997. Photosynthetic induction and stomatal oscillations in relation to the light environment of two dipterocarp rain forest tree species. Journal of Ecology 85:491503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZOTZ, G. & MIKONA, C. 2003. Photosynthetic induction and leaf carbon gain in the tropical understory epiphyte, Aspasia principissa. Annals of Botany 91:353359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Leaf traits of 12 species studied. Entries are mean ± SE from six individuals of each species. LMA, leaf mass per unit area; LT, leaf thickness; SD, stomatal density; GCL, guard cell length; Chl, chlorophyll concentration. Different letters indicate significant differences in the means between two plant types within figs or ferns.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Photosynthetic light response curves of fully mature leaves of the four representative species studied: the epiphytic fern Neottopteris nidus (●), the terrestrial fern Asplenium finlaysonianum (○), the hemiepiphytic fig Ficus altissima (◆) and the terrestrial fig Ficus oligodon (●). Data are mean ± SE (n = 6).

Figure 2

Table 2. Gas exchange parameters for the six fig and six fern species. Entries are mean ± SE from six individuals of each species. Amax', maximum net photosynthetic rate; gs-max', maximum stomatal conductance recorded during the measurement of light response curve; WUE, water use efficiency; LCP, light compensation point; LSP, light saturation point; AQY, apparent quantum yield; Rd, dark respiration rate. Different letters indicate significant differences in the means between two plant types within figs or ferns.

Figure 3

Figure 2. The relationships between maximum photosynthetic rate (Amax') and maximum stomatal conductance (gs-max'). Each point is from one measurement of one plant per species (n = 6).

Figure 4

Figure 3. The response of net photosynthesis (An; a), stomatal conductance (gs; b) and intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci; c) to a simulated lightfleck in the four representative species: the epiphytic fern Neottopteris nidus (●), the terrestrial fern Asplenium finlaysonianum (○), the hemiepiphytic fig Ficus altissima (◆) and the terrestrial fig Ficus oligodon (●). Typical data for a leaf are shown. Leaves were first exposed to 20 μmol photons m−2 s−1 until rates of gas exchange were steady; a simulated lightfleck was then imposed by increasing irradiance to the saturated light. The simulated lightfleck started at time 0.

Figure 5

Table 3. Photosynthetic induction parameters in six fig and six fern species. Data are means ± SE of time required to reach 50% (T50) and 90% of maximum net photosynthetic rate (T90), induction state (IS60) measured after 20 min of dark-adaption following the full induction, initial stomatal conductance (gs-initial) and maximum stomatal conductance (gs-max). The group means in one column with the same letter are not significantly different for either figs or ferns, respectively (P > 0.05).

Figure 6

Figure 4. The relationships between time required to reach 50% (T50) (a) or 90% (T90) (b) of the maximum net photosynthetic rate and the initial stomatal conductance under the low light (gs-initial) in the 12 species studied. The inset represents the relationship between T50 and gs-initial when gs-initial is below 70 mmol H2O m−2 s−1.