Table 2 Impact of Rubisco deactivation and activation on potential diurnal net CO₂ assimilation (A_diel) of four Vigna accessions

Model	Vigna accession	A_diel	A_f
Model	Vigna accession	(mmol m⁻² d⁻¹)	(mmol m⁻² d⁻¹)	(%)
A_Q	V. adenantha	523	–	–
	V. sp. Savi	531	–	–
	IT82E-16	569	–	–
	IT86D-1010	554	–	–
	Mean ± 95% CI	544 ± 18.3	–	–
τ_d,V τ_a,V	V. adenantha	418	105	20.0
	V. sp. Savi	423	108	20.4
	IT82E-16	449	120	21.1
	IT86D-1010	465	113	20.4
	Mean ± 95% CI	433 ± 6.1	112 ± 7.9	20.5 ± 0.83
τ_d,S τ_a,S	V. adenantha	422	101	19.4
	V. sp. Savi	419	113	21.2
	IT82E-16	455	114	20.1
	IT86D-1010	437	118	21.2
	Mean ± 95% CI	414 ± 6.1	111 ± 5	20.5 ± 0.91
τ_d,V τ_a,S	V. adenantha	435	88	16.9
	V. sp. Savi	440	91	17.2
	IT82E-16	468	101	17.8
	IT86D-1010	459	95	17.1
	Mean ± 95% CI	450 ± 6.1	94 ± 5	17.2 ± 0.91
τ_d,S τ_a,V	V. adenantha	405	118	22.6
	V. sp. Savi	401	131	24.6
	IT82E-16	435	134	23.6
	IT86D-1010	418	137	24.7
	Mean ± 95% CI	433 ± 6.1	130 ± 5	23.9 ± 0.91

Perfect tracking of changes in PPFD by net CO₂ assimilation based on steady-state light-response curves (A_Q), is compared with models in which the rate of change in Rubisco activity during deactivation (τ_d) and activation (τ_a) in response to fluctuating PPFD are alternatively parameterized using one-point V_c,max from leaf gas exchange (τ_-,V) or Rubisco activation state (S; τ_-,S). Foregone assimilation (A_f) is the difference between A_Q and the respective alternative models.

Quick links

Search