Phenotypic Plasticity in Photosynthetic Temperature Acclimation among Crop Species with Different Cold Tolerances

While interspecific variation in the temperature response of photosynthesis is well documented, the underlying physiological mechanisms remain unknown. Moreover, mechanisms related to species-dependent differences in photosynthetic temperature acclimation are unclear. We compared photosynthetic temperature acclimation in 11 crop species differing in their cold tolerance, which were grown at 15°C or 30°C. Cold-tolerant species exhibited a large decrease in optimum temperature for the photosynthetic rate at 360 μL L⁻¹ CO₂ concentration [Opt (A₃₆₀)] when growth temperature decreased from 30°C to 15°C, whereas cold-sensitive species were less plastic in Opt (A₃₆₀). Analysis using the C₃ photosynthesis model shows that the limiting step of A₃₆₀ at the optimum temperature differed between cold-tolerant and cold-sensitive species; ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylation rate was limiting in cold-tolerant species, while ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate regeneration rate was limiting in cold-sensitive species. Alterations in parameters related to photosynthetic temperature acclimation, including the limiting step of A₃₆₀, leaf nitrogen, and Rubisco contents, were more plastic to growth temperature in cold-tolerant species than in cold-sensitive species. These plastic alterations contributed to the noted growth temperature-dependent changes in Opt (A₃₆₀) in cold-tolerant species. Consequently, cold-tolerant species were able to maintain high A₃₆₀ at 15°C or 30°C, whereas cold-sensitive species were not. We conclude that differences in the plasticity of photosynthetic parameters with respect to growth temperature were responsible for the noted interspecific differences in photosynthetic temperature acclimation between cold-tolerant and cold-sensitive species.The temperature dependence of leaf photosynthetic rate shows considerable variation between plant species and with growth temperature (Berry and Björkman, 1980; Cunningham and Read, 2002; Hikosaka et al., 2006). Plants native to low-temperature environments and those grown at low temperatures generally exhibit higher photosynthetic rates at low temperatures and lower optimum temperatures, compared with plants native to high-temperature environments and those grown at high temperatures (Mooney and Billings, 1961; Slatyer, 1977; Berry and Björkman, 1980; Sage, 2002; Salvucci and Crafts-Brandner, 2004b). For example, the optimum temperature for photosynthesis differs between temperate evergreen species and tropical evergreen species (Hill et al., 1988; Read, 1990; Cunningham and Read, 2002). Such differences have been observed even among ecotypes of the same species (Björkman et al., 1975; Pearcy, 1977; Slatyer, 1977).Temperature dependence of the photosynthetic rate has been analyzed using the biochemical model proposed by Farquhar et al. (1980). This model assumes that the photosynthetic rate (A) is limited by either ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) carboxylation (A_c) or RuBP regeneration (A_r). The optimum temperature for photosynthetic rate in C₃ plants is thus potentially determined by (1) the temperature dependence of A_c, (2) the temperature dependence of A_r, or (3) both, at the colimitation point of A_c and A_r (Fig. 1; Farquhar and von Caemmerer, 1982; Hikosaka et al., 2006).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.A scheme illustrating the shift in the optimum temperature for photosynthesis depending on growth temperature. Based on the C₃ photosynthesis model, the A₃₆₀ (white and black circles) is limited by A_c (solid line) or A_r (broken line). The optimum temperature for the photosynthetic rate is potentially determined by temperature dependence of A_c (A), temperature dependence of A_r (B), or the intersection of the temperature dependences of A_c and A_r (C). When the optimum temperature for the photosynthetic rate shifts to a higher temperature, there are also three possibilities determining the optimum temperature: temperature dependence of A_c (D), temperature dependence of A_r (E), or the intersection of the temperature dependences of A_c and A_r (F). Especially in the case that the optimum temperature is determined by the intersection of the temperature dependences of A_c and A_r, the optimum temperature can shift by changes in the balance between A_c and A_r even when the optimum temperatures for these two partial reactions do not change.In many cases, the photosynthetic rate around the optimum temperature is limited by A_c, and thus the temperature dependence of A_c determines the optimum temperature for the photosynthetic rate (Hikosaka et al., 1999, 2006; Yamori et al., 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Sage and Kubien, 2007; Sage et al., 2008). As the temperature increases above the optimum, A_c is decreased by increases in photorespiration (Berry and Björkman, 1980; Jordan and Ogren, 1984; von Caemmerer, 2000). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the heat-induced deactivation of Rubisco is involved in the decrease in A_c at high temperature (Law and Crafts-Brandner, 1999; Crafts-Brandner and Salvucci, 2000; Salvucci and Crafts-Brandner, 2004a; Yamori et al., 2006b). Numerous previous studies have shown changes in the temperature dependence of A_c with growth temperature (Hikosaka et al., 1999; Bunce, 2000; Yamori et al., 2005). Also, the temperature sensitivity of Rubisco deactivation may differ between plant species (Salvucci and Crafts-Brandner, 2004b) and with growth temperature (Yamori et al., 2006b), which may explain variation in the optimum temperature for photosynthesis (Fig. 1, A and D).A_r is more responsive to temperature than A_c and often limits photosynthesis at low temperatures (Hikosaka et al., 1999, 2006; Sage and Kubien, 2007; Sage et al., 2008). Recently, several researchers indicated that A_r limits the photosynthetic rate at high temperature (Schrader et al., 2004; Wise et al., 2004; Cen and Sage, 2005; Makino and Sage, 2007). They suggested that the deactivation of Rubisco at high temperatures is not the cause of decreased A_c but a result of limitation by A_r. However, it remains unclear whether limitation by A_r is involved in the variation in the optimum temperature for the photosynthetic rate (Fig. 1, B and E).A shift in the optimum temperature for photosynthesis can result from changes in the balance between A_r and A_c, even when the optimum temperatures for these two partial reactions do not change (Fig. 1, C and F; Farquhar and von Caemmerer, 1982). The balance between A_r and A_c has been shown to change depending on growth temperature (Hikosaka et al., 1999; Hikosaka, 2005; Onoda et al., 2005a; Yamori et al., 2005) and often brings about a shift in the colimitation temperature of A_r and A_c. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that plasticity in this balance differs among species or ecotypes (Onoda et al., 2005b; Atkin et al., 2006; Ishikawa et al., 2007). Plasticity in this balance could explain interspecific variation in the plasticity of photosynthetic temperature dependence (Farquhar and von Caemmerer, 1982; Hikosaka et al., 2006), although there has been no evidence in the previous studies that the optimum temperature for photosynthesis occurs at the colimitation point of A_r and A_c.Temperature tolerance differs between species and, with growth temperature, even within species from the same functional group (Long and Woodward, 1989). Bunce (2000) indicated that the temperature dependences of A_r and A_c to growth temperature were different between species from cool and warm climates and that the balance between A_r and A_c was independent of growth temperature for a given plant species. However, it was not clarified what limited the photosynthetic rate or what parameters were important in temperature acclimation of photosynthesis. Recently, we reported that the extent of temperature homeostasis of leaf respiration and photosynthesis, which is assessed as a ratio of rates measured at their respective growth temperatures, differed depending on the extent of the cold tolerance of the species (Yamori et al., 2009b). Therefore, comparisons of several species with different cold tolerances would provide a new insight into interspecific variation of photosynthetic temperature acclimation and their underlying mechanisms. In this study, we selected 11 herbaceous crop species that differ in their cold tolerance (Yamori et al., 2009b) and grew them at two contrasting temperatures, conducting gas-exchange analyses based on the C₃ photosynthesis model (Farquhar et al., 1980). Based on these results, we addressed the following key questions. (1) Does the plasticity in photosynthetic temperature acclimation differ between cold-sensitive and cold-tolerant species? (2) Does the limiting step of photosynthesis at several leaf temperatures differ between plant species and with growth temperature? (3) What determines the optimum temperature for the photosynthetic rate among A_c, A_r, and the intersection of the temperature dependences of A_c and A_r?