Photosynthetic capacity is negatively correlated with the concentration of leaf phenolic compounds across a range of different species.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Phenolic compounds are the most commonly studied of all secondary metabolites because of their significant protective-defensive roles and their significant concentration in plant tissues. However, there has been little study on relationships between gas exchange parameters and the concentration of leaf phenolic compounds (total phenolics (TP) and condensed tannins (CT)) across a range of species. Therefore, we addressed the question: is there any correlation between photosynthetic capacity (A(max)) and TP and CT across species from different ecosystems in different continents? METHODOLOGY: A plethora of functional and structural parameters were measured in 49 plant species following different growth strategies from five sampling sites located in Greece and Australia. The relationships between several leaf traits were analysed by means of regression and principal component analysis. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: The results revealed a negative relationship between TP and CT and A(max) among the different plant species, growth strategies and sampling sites, irrespective of expression (with respect to mass, area or nitrogen content). Principal component analysis showed that high concentrations of TP and CT are associated with thick, dense leaves with low nitrogen. This leaf type is characterized by low growth, A(max) and transpiration rates, and is common in environments with low water and nutrient availability, high temperatures and high light intensities. Therefore, the high TP and CT in such leaves are compatible with the protective and defensive functions ascribed to them. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a functional integration between carbon gain and the concentration of leaf phenolic compounds that reflects the trade-off between growth and defence/protection demands, depending on the growth strategy adopted by each species.

Should structure-function relations be considered separately for homobaric vs. heterobaric leaves?

Tree and shrub species can be differentiated into two major groups based on their substantially different leaf anatomy: heterobaric and homobaric. In contrast to homobaric leaves, heterobaric leaves have bundle sheath extensions (BSEs) that create transparent regions on their lamina. Recent studies have shown that BSEs transfer visible light to internal mesophyll layers, thus affecting the photosynthetic performance of heterobaric leaves. Whether the two leaf types also differ in other functional and structural traits has not been addressed, nor have any structure-function relations. Here, we measured key anatomical and physiological parameters and tested their relationships in 30 species with different leaf types. Heterobaric leaves were thinner with lower leaf mass per area, had higher nitrogen concentration per mass, were (13)C-enriched, and achieved comparable photosynthetic capacity per area but had higher photosynthetic capacity per mass compared to homobaric leaves. Relations between leaf construction cost, nitrogen concentration, and photosynthesis followed the general pattern of the "leaf economic spectrum," but differed between homobaric and heterobaric leaves. We suggest that the mechanisms controlling these relations differ between the two leaf types, presumably due to their distinct anatomy.