Michael D. Machesky, Nathan D. Sheldon, Michael T. Hren, Selena Y. Smith
{"title":"The sensitivity of reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations to stomatal preparation methods using a leaf gas exchange model","authors":"Michael D. Machesky, Nathan D. Sheldon, Michael T. Hren, Selena Y. Smith","doi":"10.1002/aps3.11629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Premise</h3>\n \n <p>Mechanistic models using stomatal traits and leaf carbon isotope ratios to reconstruct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentrations (<i>c</i><sub><i>a</i></sub>) are important to understand the Phanerozoic paleoclimate. However, methods for preparing leaf cuticles to measure stomatal traits have not been standardized.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Three people measured the stomatal density and index, guard cell length, guard cell pair width, and pore length of leaves from the same <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, <i>Quercus alba</i>, and <i>Zingiber mioga</i> leaves growing at known CO<sub>2</sub> levels using four preparation methods: fluorescence on cleared leaves, nail polish, dental putty on fresh leaves, and dental putty on dried leaves.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There are significant differences between trait measurements from each method. Modeled <i>c</i><sub><i>a</i></sub> calculations are less sensitive to method than individual traits; however, the choice of assumed carbon isotope fractionation also impacted the accuracy of the results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>We show that there is not a significant difference between <i>c</i><sub><i>a</i></sub> estimates made using any of the four methods. Further study is needed on the fractionation due to carboxylation of ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP) in individual plant species before use as a paleo-CO<sub>2</sub> barometer and to refine estimates based upon widely applied taxa (e.g., <i>Ginkgo</i>). Finally, we recommend that morphological measurements be made by multiple observers to reduce the effect of individual observational biases.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8022,"journal":{"name":"Applications in Plant Sciences","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aps3.11629","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applications in Plant Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aps3.11629","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Premise
Mechanistic models using stomatal traits and leaf carbon isotope ratios to reconstruct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (ca) are important to understand the Phanerozoic paleoclimate. However, methods for preparing leaf cuticles to measure stomatal traits have not been standardized.
Methods
Three people measured the stomatal density and index, guard cell length, guard cell pair width, and pore length of leaves from the same Ginkgo biloba, Quercus alba, and Zingiber mioga leaves growing at known CO2 levels using four preparation methods: fluorescence on cleared leaves, nail polish, dental putty on fresh leaves, and dental putty on dried leaves.
Results
There are significant differences between trait measurements from each method. Modeled ca calculations are less sensitive to method than individual traits; however, the choice of assumed carbon isotope fractionation also impacted the accuracy of the results.
Discussion
We show that there is not a significant difference between ca estimates made using any of the four methods. Further study is needed on the fractionation due to carboxylation of ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP) in individual plant species before use as a paleo-CO2 barometer and to refine estimates based upon widely applied taxa (e.g., Ginkgo). Finally, we recommend that morphological measurements be made by multiple observers to reduce the effect of individual observational biases.
期刊介绍:
Applications in Plant Sciences (APPS) is a monthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal promoting the rapid dissemination of newly developed, innovative tools and protocols in all areas of the plant sciences, including genetics, structure, function, development, evolution, systematics, and ecology. Given the rapid progress today in technology and its application in the plant sciences, the goal of APPS is to foster communication within the plant science community to advance scientific research. APPS is a publication of the Botanical Society of America, originating in 2009 as the American Journal of Botany''s online-only section, AJB Primer Notes & Protocols in the Plant Sciences.
APPS publishes the following types of articles: (1) Protocol Notes describe new methods and technological advancements; (2) Genomic Resources Articles characterize the development and demonstrate the usefulness of newly developed genomic resources, including transcriptomes; (3) Software Notes detail new software applications; (4) Application Articles illustrate the application of a new protocol, method, or software application within the context of a larger study; (5) Review Articles evaluate available techniques, methods, or protocols; (6) Primer Notes report novel genetic markers with evidence of wide applicability.