Next Article in Journal
A New Fluorescence Detection Method for Tryptophan- and Tyrosine-Derived Allelopathic Compounds in Barley and Lupin
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Environmental and Non-Environmental Factors on Dynamic Photosynthetic Carbon Assimilation in Leaves under Changing Light
Previous Article in Journal
A Metabolome Analysis and the Immunity of Phlomis purpurea against Phytophthora cinnamomi
Previous Article in Special Issue
Leaf Gas Exchange and Photosystem II Fluorescence Responses to CO2 Cycling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/plants12101928
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Terrestrial and Floating Aquatic Plants Differ in Acclimation to Light Environment

by
Marina López-Pozo
1,*,
William W. Adams III
2,
Stephanie K. Polutchko
2 and
Barbara Demmig-Adams
2
1
Department of Plant Biology & Ecology, University of the Basque Country, 48940 Leioa, Spain
2
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(10), 1928; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101928
Submission received: 27 March 2023 / Revised: 2 May 2023 / Accepted: 6 May 2023 / Published: 9 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Photosynthesis under Environmental Fluctuations)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The ability of plants to respond to environmental fluctuations is supported by acclimatory adjustments in plant form and function that may require several days and development of a new leaf. We review adjustments in photosynthetic, photoprotective, and foliar vascular capacity in response to variation in light and temperature in terrestrial plants. The requirement for extensive acclimation to these environmental conditions in terrestrial plants is contrasted with an apparent lesser need for acclimation to different light environments, including rapid light fluctuations, in floating aquatic plants for the duckweed Lemna minor. Relevant features of L. minor include unusually high growth rates and photosynthetic capacities coupled with the ability to produce high levels of photoprotective xanthophylls across a wide range of growth light environments without compromising photosynthetic efficiency. These features also allow L. minor to maximize productivity and avoid problems during an abrupt experimental transfer of low-light-grown plants to high light. The contrasting responses of land plants and floating aquatic plants to the light environment further emphasize the need of land plants to, e.g., experience light fluctuations in their growth environment before they induce acclimatory adjustments that allow them to take full advantage of natural settings with such fluctuations.

1. Introduction

Most plants go through an acclimation phase that can require considerable time before the full degree and speed of plant responses to fluctuations in environmental conditions are reached. Acclimation is the process by which a plant adjusts its form and function in response to environmental conditions to which it is exposed [1]. Some aspects of acclimation in response to environmental change can take place over hours or days even in mature leaves after they are already fully developed; however, many aspects of this acclimation–and especially its full extent–require development of a whole new leaf in the altered environment to be fully acclimated in both form and function [2,3]. We summarize evidence that this requirement for acclimation applies uniformly to terrestrial (land) plants that are rooted in place but may not apply to the same extent to other groups of plants. Specifically, floating aquatic plants adapted to life on a freshwater body may require a constitutive readiness for a range of environmental conditions without undergoing acclimation over days. We examine available evidence for such a difference between terrestrial and floating aquatic plants with an emphasis on acclimation to the growth light environment. We provide selected examples that demonstrate the requirement for acclimation in land plants as well as examples that illustrate an apparent constitutive, pre-existing readiness of Lemna (family Lemnaceae, duckweeds or water lenses) for exhibiting full responses to changes in the light environment.
Terrestrial plants, rooted in place, typically experience fluctuations in their environment in a way that does allow time for acclimatory adjustments in leaf form and function. For example, total mean daily light supply (dependent largely on daylength) and mean temperature shift gradually over the seasons in many environments (see, e.g., [4]). Superimposed upon such gradual changes, daily fluctuations in light level and temperature commonly occur in a consistent manner over the course of a day on time scales of hours. In addition, fluctuations on even shorter time scales of seconds and minutes can occur, e.g., in light level in certain environments. For example, a plant developing in the shade of a tree canopy may experience rapidly changing light levels before, during, and after exposure to shafts of sunlight (sunflecks) piercing the tree canopy throughout the day [5,6,7]. Such fluctuations typically reoccur at similar–and thus predictable–times from one day to the next under the same canopy in terrestrial environments (see, e.g., [6]). In addition, systematic shifts in light conditions occur as the position of the sun changes during seasonal progression or as a deciduous tree canopy flushes (shading of understory plants) or drops leaves (exposing understory plants) in response to environmental cues. All of these patterns allow time on the scale of days for plant acclimation. Moreover, gusts of wind can be a source of light fluctuations (wind flecks; [8,9] but may also be expected to allow for acclimatory responses in areas with regular wind exposure. There is thus a reinforcing cycle between the experience of fluctuations in natural settings, induction of acclimatory adjustments, and a resulting ability of plants to respond fully to environmental fluctuations (see, e.g., [10]). Exceptions to patterns that allow time for acclimatory responses include sudden dramatic increases in photon fluence density (PFD) when gaps form (as trees fall over) in a dense forest, causing the understory vegetation to suddenly experience an unpredictable transition from shade to full-sun exposure [11]. We speculate that, in a pond or similar water body, similar transitions may occur frequently and in ways not predictable from seasonal or other regular environmental patterns. For example, floating plants can be swept from sun-exposed to shaded parts of a pond–or be churned from the top of dense mats to the bottom–in a matter of minutes in ways that cannot be anticipated. Other aspects of the environment may also change in highly irregular patterns in a pond environment dependent on natural or human-related disturbances (e.g., [12,13,14,15]). In the following, selected features of land plants subject to acclimation are examined, unique features of Lemnaceae are highlighted, and comparisons made between land plants and Lemnaceae for the example of photosynthesis and photosynthesis-related responses.

2. Acclimation of Photosynthesis and Photoprotection to Light Environment in Land Plants

This section examines acclimatory responses of photosynthesis and photoprotection to deep shade, full sun, and mixed light environments in land plants.

2.1. Acclimation to Sun-Exposed versus Deeply Shaded Natural Environments

Terrestrial plants growing in sun-exposed locations, but not those growing in deep shade, undergo pronounced diurnal fluctuations in photosynthesis rate and photoprotective (non-photochemical) dissipation of excess excitation over the course of a day (Figure 1; [16]). Figure 1 shows the example of a leaf growing in a fully sun-exposed location with a bell-shaped curve of photon receipt (Figure 1a; grey symbols). This leaf utilized photons efficiently in photosynthesis (photochemical route) when light levels were low to moderate in the morning hours, reached saturation with maximal photosynthesis rates over the midday hours of peak irradiance, and then returned to efficient photon utilization in photosynthesis for the rest of the day (Figure 1a,c; green symbols). Whereas panel (a) of Figure 1 highlights the respective fractions of photons (grey symbols) utilized via either the photochemical (green symbols) or non-photochemical route (orange symbols), panel (c) shows the same rate of photochemical utilization on an expanded scale to illustrate photosynthetic saturation (as well as a minor midday dip). On the other hand, the fraction of photons dissipated through the alternative photoprotective non-photochemical route (Figure 1a; orange symbols) increased as photosynthesis approached light-saturation and declined in the afternoon. This pattern was confirmed by diurnal changes in non-photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence as shown in Figure 1e. In contrast, a leaf of the same species growing in a deeply shaded location displayed much lower photosynthetic activity (Figure 1d) and minimal to negligible non-photochemical dissipation (Figure 1f). Use of these remotely sensed, non-destructive fluorescence parameters allowed monitoring of these changing relationships from the same leaf throughout the day. The ability of plants to respond to differences in light environment is based on corresponding acclimatory up- and down-regulation of the capacities for photosynthesis, foliar export of [3,17], and photoprotective processes [3,18,19,20], resulting in a coordinated acclimation to the light environment of plant function, anatomy, and morphology (for a review, see [21]).

2.2. Acclimation to Shaded Light Environments with Frequent Sunflecks

Leaves of land plants that develop in shaded sites with sunflecks (frequent or infrequent sudden shafts of bright sunlight against a background of low light) undergo some acclimation of the total pool size of the interconvertible xanthophyll cycle pigments violaxanthin, antheraxanthin, and zeaxanthin (Figure 2; [6]; see also [22]) as well as the antioxidant ascorbate (Figure 2; see also Section 4.3 below on antioxidants).
This acclimation is, furthermore, associated with an ability to respond to sunflecks through extremely rapid increases and decreases in both photosynthesis and photoprotection. The experience of fluctuations in the natural environment thus induces adjustments that enable plants to take full advantage of their environment [10,18,23]. Figure 3 illustrates this behavior for Stephania japonica growing in an environment with frequent sunflecks (Figure 3a) and exhibiting very rapid fluctuations in photosynthesis rate (Figure 3b) as well as photoprotective non-photochemical energy dissipation (Figure 3c; [6]). This represents a scenario as described above, where a terrestrial plant is exposed to daily fluctuations in light environment during plant development allowing for acclimatory adjustment. Understory plants in such environments tend to maintain continuously open stomates, which facilitates rapid onset of photosynthesis upon rapid increases in light intensity [7]. The extremely rapid increases and decreases in non-photochemical energy dissipation occurred against a background of continuous maintenance of a substantial fraction of the xanthophyll cycle pool as its de-epoxidized, photoprotective constituents (Figure 3c). Such retention of zeaxanthin—as a facilitator of non-photochemical dissipation of excess excitation energy [18,19]—likely allows a particularly rapid onset of this photoprotective process. There is a growing body of literature recognizing the variability of natural light environments [24] as well as the role of long-term acclimation contributing to plants’ ability to thrive in fluctuating light environments (see, e.g., [25,26,27]).

3. Unusual Features That Afford Flexibility in Lemnaceae

This section highlights selected features of Lemnaceae that support an apparent constitutive readiness of photosynthesis and photoprotection to quickly respond to environmental change.

3.1. Rapid Growth

In Lemnaceae, a new daughter plant is formed vegetatively from a mother frond in just a day or two [28,29]. In contrast, even the fastest-growing terrestrial plants require up to a week to grow a new leaf upon sudden transfer to a new environment, as described for the example of cotton in Section 5 below. At the other end of the spectrum, some evergreen or deciduous land plants exhibit only one (or two) flushes of leaves each year [30].

3.2. Constitutively Open Stomates and Facile Gas Flow

Stomata are in the upper epidermis of the duckweed frond, with stomatal size and density depending on environmental conditions such as light and temperature [31]. Duckweeds exhibit several features that support rapid fluctuations in photosynthesis rate in rapidly changing light environments. Duckweed stomates are continuously open and do not display the responsiveness to controls seen in terrestrial plants [32]. For example, duckweed stomates remain open even after application of abscisic acid [33]. Duckweeds exhibit a high density of chloroplasts in the upper frond layers [34,35]. In addition, the presence of aerenchyma (spongy tissue with air channels) favors gas exchange from upper to lower parts of the frond [36]. It has been suggested that the only (minor) control over gas exchange in Lemna is exerted by its waxy cuticle that also has defensive functions [37].

3.3. Effective Convective Cooling

Continuous contact of more than 50% of the duckweed plant (with its high surface area-to-volume ratio) with a thermally stable body of water buffers the plant against a sudden rise in temperature even upon rapid transition from low to high light intensity (as described in Section 5 below). This contrasts with a limited inability to provide evaporative cooling upon sudden transfer to high PFD seen in shade-grown leaves of terrestrial plants with their limiting water-transport infrastructure (Section 5 below). Furthermore, the direct contact with water of the whole surface of duckweed fronds should allow more efficient heat buffering than is the case for emergent aquatic plants growing in standing water (but without direct contact of much of their leaf surface with water) that are known to be vulnerable to heat stress [38,39].

3.4. Unique Combination of Annual and Evergreen Terrestrial Plant Features

While Lemnaceae grow as fast or faster than annual land plants (see above), they simultaneously exhibit similarly high photoprotective capacities as slow-growing evergreen terrestrial plants [40]. Furthermore, Lemnaceae can enter a quiescent state in which plants remain green despite growth arrest, e.g., under very low nutrient supply or cold temperature–as reported for evergreen terrestrial plants in some contexts (see, e.g., [17]; see also Section 6 below). Moreover, Lemnaceae can maintain their high growth rates and high photosynthetic capacities (without any photoinhibition of photosynthesis) even under continuous high light supply that induces extreme starch build-up and downregulation of chlorophyll content [40,41]. This situation differs from scenarios where terrestrial species exhibit pronounced foliar starch accumulation associated with sink-limitation-dependent inhibition of growth [42] and photoinhibition of photosynthesis [43]. On the other hand, the response of Lemnaceae is comparable to situations where terrestrial species with high growth rates and/or large carbohydrate storage capacities exhibited combinations of high photosynthesis rates with increased starch and biomass accumulation under elevated CO2 levels [44] (see [45] for further complexities).

4. Comparison of Capacity of Photosynthesis and Photosynthesis-Related Processes across Growth Light Intensity in Floating Aquatic Plants versus Land Plants

This section addresses responses of the capacities for photosynthesis, foliar vascular infrastructure, and photoprotective processes.

4.1. Maximal Photosynthetic Capacity

Acclimatory upregulation of light- and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacity, with a much greater capacity on a leaf area basis, is seen in high- compared to low-light-grown plants of terrestrial species (Figure 4; [17]). In contrast, floating aquatic plants like those in the genus Lemna exhibit constitutively high levels of Rubisco [46] and a high associated light- and CO2-saturated capacity of photosynthesis across a wide range of growth PFDs (Figure 4; [41,47]). Figure 4 shows that L. gibba exhibited up to 50% protein of dry biomass [40] present in the form of Rubisco [46], and an associated high maximal capacity of light- and CO2-saturated oxygen evolution even in plants grown in low light [40,48]. Martindale and Bowes [49] showed that, whereas only a small fraction of Rubisco is activated in low-light-grown duckweed, Rubisco can be rapidly activated to support a high light-and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacity upon exposure to high PFD. Figure 4 shows such light- and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacities of leaves of land plants and fronds of duckweed–each developed under either low or high growth PFD. In other words, duckweeds maintain what can be considered a sun phenotype with respect to photosynthetic capacity even when grown under low PFD.
The low maximal photosynthetic capacity of the leaves of land plants grown under low PFD is consistent with a much lower Rubisco level in these leaves compared to leaves grown under high PFD. It should be noted that the extent of photosynthetic acclimation of terrestrial plants to changes in the light environment varied with species-dependent foliar anatomical constraints [50,51] and with whether transfer from low to high PFD occurred before or after a leaf was fully expanded [52].
Plants 12 01928 g004 550
Figure 4. Light- and CO2-saturated rate of photosynthetic oxygen evolution (on a leaf or frond area basis) for pumpkin, tomato, sunflower (left side), and Lemna gibba (in color, right side) grown under 100 and 700 µmol photons m−2 s−1. Values are given as percentages of maximum values in plants grown under 700 µmol photons m−2 s−1 for each species (pumpkin = 50, tomato = 53, sunflower = 59, and L. gibba = 33 µmol O2 m−2 s−1). Significant differences are signified by asterisks (***, p < 0.001). n.s. = not significant. For original data and further statistical information, see Stewart et al. [48] and Polutchko et al. [53].
Figure 4. Light- and CO2-saturated rate of photosynthetic oxygen evolution (on a leaf or frond area basis) for pumpkin, tomato, sunflower (left side), and Lemna gibba (in color, right side) grown under 100 and 700 µmol photons m−2 s−1. Values are given as percentages of maximum values in plants grown under 700 µmol photons m−2 s−1 for each species (pumpkin = 50, tomato = 53, sunflower = 59, and L. gibba = 33 µmol O2 m−2 s−1). Significant differences are signified by asterisks (***, p < 0.001). n.s. = not significant. For original data and further statistical information, see Stewart et al. [48] and Polutchko et al. [53].
Plants 12 01928 g004

4.2. Vascular Infrastructure for Sugar and Water Transport

Acclimatory upregulation of photosynthetic capacity (as the capacity of sugar production) in land plants is accompanied by upregulation of the vascular infrastructure for foliar sugar export and water import in response to greater growth PFD (Figure 5; [54,55,56]; Section 5 below addresses a similar concomitant upregulation of maximal photosynthetic capacity and foliar vascular infrastructure in response to cool temperature). Furthermore, such acclimatory responses of the individual leaf/plant vary in degree because of genetic adaptation to different habitats of origin for a species or ecotype–with different light supply, temperature, and water availability [4,54]. Figure 5 shows substantial concomitant acclimation of light-and CO2-saturated maximal photosynthetic capacity to growth light environment in Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes from Sweden and Italy as well as the greater degree of this response in the Swedish ecotype [54,56].
Because of their diminutive size, their intimate contact with water, and the fact that they consist mainly, or exclusively (in the rootless Wolffia arrhiza), of photosynthetic tissue [28], Lemnaceae presumably require minimal vascular tissue for water and sugar transport [57]. Nutrients are taken up through the lower epidermis in contact with water under ample nutrient supply (with increasing contributions from rootlets extending into the water under low nutrient supply; [58]). Vascular tissue is absent in the genera Wolffia and Wolffiella and exhibits a lack of complexity in Spirodela, Landoltia, and Lemna [28,59], with plasmodesmatal connections between adjacent cells [60] fulfilling the role of transporting water and carbohydrate. Overall, the morphology and anatomy of duckweeds is thus thought to be well adapted for these small plants’ habit of floating on water surfaces and showing a potential for rapid growth during relatively short growing seasons [28,29]. Kim (2007) [60] specifically highlights the contributions of a plant body packed with chloroplasts throughout and with abundant plasmodesmata, air channels, as well as mechanisms that support expedient separation of daughter fronds from mother fronds during rapid vegetative propagation.

4.3. Antioxidants

Figure 6 shows pronounced acclimatory differences in the pool size of the xanthophyll cycle pigments (VAZ) as well as the antioxidant metabolites ascorbate and glutathione in response to growth of a terrestrial plant under high versus low PFD [61]. Ascorbate supports VAZ pool conversion to its de-epoxidized components [62] as well as reduction of hydrogen peroxide to water by ascorbate peroxidase in the chloroplast (Mehler reaction; [63]). Glutathione supports reduction of vital thiol-containing antioxidant enzymes in the chloroplast and other cellular compartments [64]. Additional components of antioxidant systems exhibited similarly pronounced acclimation to growth PFD [22,61].
Whereas the level of antioxidant metabolites and other antioxidant systems still needs to be characterized across a range of growth PFDs in Lemnaceae, available evidence indicates high levels of carotenoids (except for zeaxanthin), antioxidant vitamins, and mineral cofactors of antioxidant enzymes [65] as well as multiple phenolics with antioxidant/anti-inflammatory properties [66,67,68,69] even in plants grown under very low PFD [70]. Similarly, [40,47,48] reported high levels of the carotenoids β-carotene (provitamin A) and lutein as well as vitamin E in duckweed plants grown under low PFD.

5. Comparison of How Quickly Substantial Additional Zeaxanthin Is Formed upon Sudden Transfer from Low to High PFD in Land Plants versus Floating Aquatic Plants

5.1. Changes in Xanthophyll Cycle Pool Size and Conversion in Terrestrial Plants upon Transfer

The example depicted in Figure 7 illustrates that, compared to high-light-grown individuals, low-light-grown individuals of the same species were unable to quickly accumulate considerable additional amounts of the photoprotective components Z+A of the xanthophyll cycle upon exposure to high light for 24 h following 12 h of darkness. The VAZ pool was several-fold lower in individuals of this species when grown under low (versus high) PFD and remained at these different levels through the high-light treatment.
Similar results were reported for a range of additional terrestrial species, including both annuals and evergreens [72,73]. For example, plants of several terrestrial species grown in non-excessive light and suddenly transferred to 1100 µmol photons m−2 s−1 increased their VAZ pools only gradually over the course of a whole week [72]. In the case of cotton (as an example for a fast-growing annual species), new leaves developed over the course of a week and exhibited features of high-light-grown leaves [72]. Evergreen species did not develop new leaves over this period. In contrast, Lemnaceae can form a whole new plant (by vegetative clonal formation of daughter fronds from a mother frond) in just a day or two. This example further illustrates that, unlike natural environments with fluctuations in PFD (see Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3), a growth environment with constant low PFD fails to prepare terrestrial plants for coping with a sudden change in growth PFD (see also [10,18,22]).

5.2. Changes in Xanthophyll Cycle Pool and Conversion in Lemna upon Transfer

The example depicted in Figure 8 shows that individuals of L. minor grown in non-excessive light (200 µmol photons m−2 s−1 with a 16-h photoperiod; i.e., similar to the above-mentioned land plants) (i) had VAZ pools that were not much lower (about 25%) than those of plants grown in high light (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1), (ii) were able to increase their VAZ pool to the size of that in plants grown at high PFD within 24 h (rather than over several days) upon sudden transfer from low (200) to high (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1) PFD, and (iii) accumulated as much zeaxanthin by 24 h post-transfer as the plants that had developed in continuous high PFD. This finding shows that L. minor did not require extended acclimation after a sudden increase in PFD (see above). Moreover, there were no signs of heat damage in L. minor upon sudden transfer from low to high PFD, which could be due to duckweed fronds’ high surface-to-volume ratio and contact with thermostable water (see above). In contrast, land plants grown under low PFD typically possess insufficient vascular infrastructure (see Figure 5 above) and stomatal density [74] to provide the necessary evaporative cooling upon sudden transfer from low to high PFD. In other words, this example suggests that floating aquatic plants–perhaps due to genetic adaptation to fluctuating environments–can cope with a sudden change in growth PFD without requiring prior exposure to at least some periods of increased PFD during individual plant development.

6. Acclimation to Other Environmental Factors in Land Plants and Lemnaceae

6.1. Temperature Acclimation in Land Plants

Figure 9 shows (i) the pronounced extent of acclimation to warm or cool growth temperature in A. thaliana plants grown under these contrasting conditions from seedling stage as well as (ii) the limited extent of acclimation reached by warm-grown plants suddenly transferred to lower temperature [3]. As evident from Figure 9, this terrestrial winter annual (but not summer annuals; [75]) exhibited pronounced acclimatory adjustments in leaf form and function, including a much greater maximal photosynthetic capacity and leaf mass per area (as well as greater foliar sugar-export infrastructure, [4,54,75,76]) in leaves that had developed under cool versus warm temperature. Transfer of mature warm-grown leaves to cool temperature for one week did produce some acclimatory adjustment in these features but was unable to lead to the full acclimation seen in leaves that had developed under cool temperature. This result further demonstrates the need for multi-day acclimation to the environment in terrestrial plants and the partial, but limited, ability of their mature leaves to reach full acclimation of form and function upon sudden transfer.

6.2. Response to Low or High Nutrient Supply in Lemnaceae

As shown above, development of a new leaf in an altered environment is often needed for full acclimation of form and function. In terrestrial species, new leaves require 5 to 7 days to mature in fast-growing annuals and longer in woody and evergreen species. In contrast, Lemnaceae can form whole new plants (daughter clones from mother clones) in 1 to 2 days (for morphological information, see [29]). This difference would be expected to reduce the time required for acclimation to a new environment. More research is needed to compare the need for acclimation to environmental factors other than light between Lemnaceae and terrestrial plants.
The response of Lemnaceae to the level of nutrient supply is defined by their ability to (i) acquire nitrogen from endophytic symbionts (e.g., Rhizobium lemnae) and other N2-fixing microorganisms [77] and (ii) retain large amounts of vegetative storage protein as an endogenous source of nitrogen for new growth. For example, L. minor persisted for several months over the summer with green fronds [40,47] in a pond with negligible levels of nitrogen in the water (as either nitrate or ammonia; Christine M. Escobar, personal communication). These plants still exhibited a photosynthetic capacity of 14.8 ± 1.5 µmol O2 m−2 s−1 (Jared J. Stewart, unpublished data). This effect is likely related to the ability of duckweeds to exhibit some growth even under negligible nitrogen supply in the medium by utilizing nitrogen provided via bacterial N2 fixation [77]. Similarly, L. minor exhibited a remarkably high photosynthetic capacity (of 66.6 ± 2.3 µmol O2 m−2 s−1) after 4 days upon transfer from a medium with ample nutrient supply (1/2 strength Schenk and Hildebrandt medium; bioWORLD, Dublin, OH, United States; [78]) to a medium with low nutrient supply (1/20 strength Schenk and Hildebrandt medium).
Whereas the above features suggest an ability of Lemnaceae to buffer against low nutrient supply in the medium, there is also evidence for photosynthetic acclimation in response to increased nutrient supply in Lemna on a time scale similar to what is seen in land plants for acclimation to light environment. Light- and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacity of fronds collected from the above-described pond with negligible nitrogen content increased to an astounding rate (on a frond area basis) of 100.4 µmol O2 m−2 s−1 over 14 days (Table 1) upon transfer to ample nutrient supply (1/2 strength Schenk & Hildebrandt medium). This increase in photosynthetic capacity on a frond area basis was associated with a concomitant matching increase in dry biomass per frond area, such that photosynthetic capacity on a dry biomass basis remained the same (Table 1). This response is similar in its time course and features to that of land plants for a comparison of low- versus high-light-grown plants, where photosynthetic capacity and dry biomass per leaf area are greater in high versus low light in proportion with each other, resulting in an unchanged photosynthetic capacity on a dry biomass basis [79]. It can be concluded that L. minor did undergo acclimatory changes in photosynthetic capacity in response to a sudden increase in nutrient supply in the medium. This conclusion is also consistent with the finding of acclimatory adjustment in root length in response to low nutrient supply [58] as well as acclimatory adjustments in response to different levels of copper exposure [80] in L. minor.

6.3. Maintenance of Light-Harvesting Capacity in Lemnaceae despite Growth Arrest

Lemnaceae exhibit a notable ability to maintain a high light-harvesting capacity (green fronds) even with negligible nitrogen supply from the medium (in an outside pond), which differs from the response of annual land plants like spinach but is similar to the response of evergreen land plants. Under low (but not negligible) nutrient supply, all but the youngest leaves of spinach turned yellow [1] with apparent transfer of nitrogen from older to younger leaves. This yellowing was seen when plants were watered daily with a (low-nitrogen) medium containing 0.25 mM rather than (a nitrogen-replete) medium with 14 mM nitrate [1]. In contrast, soybean (as a terrestrial species with N2-fixing symbionts as in Lemna) exhibited some growth even in the absence of nitrogen supply in the soil [81] Lemna minor did appear to arrest clonal divisions in the nutrient-depleted pond once the pond was completely covered with Lemna. Such an effect of crowding when coverage is high has been documented under controlled conditions as well. Duckweed growth rates are highest when density of coverage is low and drop off when high percentages of coverage are reached (see [82]). It appears that in clonal floating aquatic plants, growth arrest is related to competition for nutrients and space rather than for other abiotic factors (e.g., light). We observed a similar response–of growth arrest combined with maintenance of green fronds–in Lemna species upon transfer to cold temperature. Lemna stayed green for 9–12 months in sealed dishes in darkness at 4 °C and quickly resumed growth upon transfer to moderate light levels and warm temperature (not shown). Likewise, L. minor fronds remained green outside through repeated freezing of shallow ponds from early to mid-winter in Colorado (our unpublished observations).
Overall, these responses to variable nutrient supply and temperature in Lemnaceae, once again, represent a combination of the contrasting responses of annual and evergreen land plants in combining the potential of terrestrial annuals for very fast growth under favorable conditions with the ability of terrestrial evergreens to stay green while exhibiting growth arrest under unfavorable conditions. These findings further support the notion that floating aquatic plants possess unique combinations of traits that may be a result of the environment in which they evolved.

7. Conclusions

Unlike land plants, the floating aquatic plant L. minor does not require acclimation over multiple days to changes in light environment, including experience of rapid fluctuations. This readiness of L. minor is associated with unusual features of photosynthesis and photoprotection. The ability of L. minor to exhibit a high light-and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacity even when grown under low PFD is likely due to its constitutive high level of Rubisco (serving as vegetative storage protein). Furthermore, L. minor’s high constitutive antioxidant levels may be associated with a low level of self-shading, and several features enable rapid accumulation of high zeaxanthin levels. Duckweeds can thus be viewed as maintaining critical elements of a sun phenotype with respect to the capacity of photosynthesis and photoprotection even when grown in low PFD. These findings have practical implications. (i) Duckweed can be grown in low PFD (with a high photon-use efficiency) without the same penalties to productivity and nutritional quality as apply to land plants, i.e., duckweed exhibits the same rapid growth and overall high nutritional quality when grown in low versus high PFD. (ii) Rapid accumulation of high zeaxanthin levels can be triggered in L. minor grown under low PFD by sudden transfer to high PFD (as a pre-harvest finishing procedure) without any risk of photodamage or heat damage, The unusual response of duckweed with respect to light environment does not necessarily apply to other aspects of its environment.

Author Contributions

B.D.-A. conceptualized the review with contributions from W.W.A.III and M.L.-P.; M.L.-P. conducted the experiments resulting in data shown in Figure 8 and Table 1; M.L.-P. and S.K.P. prepared the figures from data in previously published studies. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The data presented here are based on research supported by the Translational Research Institute for Space Health through Cooperative Agreement NNX16AO69A, National Science Foundation awards DEB-1022236 and IOS-0841546, and the University of Colorado.

Data Availability Statement

The data discussed in this review are shown here and/or in previously published studies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Logan, B.A.; Demmig-Adams, B.; Rosenstiel, T.N.; Adams, W.W., III. Effect of nitrogen limitation on foliar antioxidants in relationship to other metabolic characteristics. Planta 1999, 209, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Amiard, V.; Mueh, K.E.; Demmig-Adams, B.; Ebbert, V.; Turgeon, R.; Adams, W.W., III. Anatomical and photosynthetic acclimation to the light environment in species with differing mechanisms of phloem loading. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 12968–12973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Adams, W.W., III; Stewart, J.J.; Demmig-Adams, B. Photosynthetic modulation in response to plant activity and environment. In The Leaf: A Platform for Performing Photosynthesis; Adams, W.W., III, Terashima, I., Eds.; Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 44, pp. 493–563. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adams, W.W., III; Stewart, J.J.; Cohu, C.M.; Muller, O.; Demmig-Adams, B. Habitat temperature and precipitation of Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes determine the response of foliar vasculature, photosynthesis, and transpiration to growth temperature. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Valladares, F.; Allen, M.T.; Pearcy, R.W. Photosynthetic responses to dynamic light under field conditions in six tropical rainforest shrubs occuring along a light gradient. Oecologia 1997, 111, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Adams, W.W., III; Demmig-Adams, B.; Logan, B.A.; Barker, D.H.; Osmond, C.B. Rapid changes in xanthophyll cycle-dependent energy dissipation and photosystem II efficiency in two vines, Stephania japonica and Smilax australis, growing in the understory of an open Eucalyptus forest. Plant Cell Environ. 1999, 22, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Way, D.A.; Pearcy, R.W. Sunflecks in trees and forests: From photosynthetic physiology to global change biology. Tree Physiol. 2012, 32, 1066–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Burgess, A.J.; Durand, M.; Gibbs, J.A.; Retkute, R.; Robson, T.M.; Murchie, E.H. The effect of canopy architecture on the patterning of “windflecks” within a wheat canopy. Plant Cell Environ. 2021, 44, 3524–3537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Durand, M.; Matule, B.; Burgess, A.J.; Robson, T.M. Sunfleck properties from time series of fluctuating light. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 308, 108554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vialet-Chabrand, S.R.M.; Matthews, J.S.A.; McAusland, L.; Blatt, M.R.; Griffiths, H.; Lawson, T. Temporal dynamics of stomatal behavior: Modeling and implications for photosynthesis and water use. Plant Physiol. 2017, 174, 603–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Naidu, S.L.; DeLucia, E.H. Acclimation of shade-developed leaves on saplings exposed to late-season canopy gaps. Tree Physiol. 1997, 17, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pray, C.L.; Nowlin, W.H.; Vanni, M.J. Deposition and decomposition of periodical cicadas (Homoptera: Cicadidae: Magicicada) in woodland aquatic ecosystems. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2009, 28, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Weber, M.J.; Brown, M.L. Effects of resource pulses on nutrient availability, ecosystem productivity, and temporal variability following a stochastic disturbance in eutrophic glacial lakes. Hydrobiologia 2016, 771, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Peng, W.; Wu, N.; Qu, X.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, C. The effects of flood pulse on multiple aquatic organisms in a seasonal shallow lake. Aquat. Ecol. 2021, 55, 379–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, Y.; Huang, X.; Xiang, L.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Y.; Jeppesen, E. Influence of Lateglacial meltwater influx from alpine glaciers on the aquatic ecosystem of Kanas Lake in the Altai Mountains, China. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2022, 604, 111214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Demmig-Adams, B.; Adams, W.W., III; Barker, D.H.; Logan, B.A.; Bowling, D.R.; Verhoeven, A.S. Using chlorophyll fluorescence to assess the fraction of absorbed light allocated to thermal dissipation of excess excitation. Physiol. Plant. 1996, 98, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Demmig-Adams, B.; Stewart, J.J.; Adams, W.W., III. Environmental regulation of intrinsic photosynthetic capacity: An integrated view. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2017, 37, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Demmig-Adams, B.; Cohu, C.M.; Muller, O.; Adams, W.W., III. Modulation of photosynthetic energy conversion efficiency in nature: From seconds to seasons. Photosynth. Res. 2012, 113, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Demmig-Adams, B.; Stewart, J.J.; López-Pozo, M.; Polutchko, S.K.; Adams, W.W., III. Zeaxanthin, a molecule for photoprotection in many different environments. Molecules 2020, 25, 5825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cun, Z.; Xu, X.Z.; Zhang, J.Y.; Shuang, S.P.; Wu, H.M.; An, T.X.; Chen, J.-W. Responses of photosystem to long-term light stress in a typically shade-tolerant species Panax notoginseng. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 13, 1095726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Björkman, O. Responses to Different Quantum Flux Densities. In Physiological Plant Ecology I; Blackwell Science: Oxford, MI, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  22. Demmig-Adams, B.; Polutchko, S.K.; Stewart, J.J.; Adams, W.W., III. History of excess-light exposure modulates extent and kinetics of fast-acting non-photochemical energy dissipation. Plant Physiol. Rep. 2022, 27, 560–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Demmig-Adams, B.; Polutchko, S.K.; Adams, W.W., III. Structure-function-environment relationship of the isomers zeaxanthin and lutein. Photochem 2022, 2, 308–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Parker, G.G.; Fitzjarrald, D.R.; Gonçalves Sampaio, I.C. Consequences of environmental heterogeneity for the photosynthetic light environment of a tropical forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 278, 107661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Campany, C.E.; Tjoelker, M.G.; von Caemmerer, S.; Duursma, R.A. Coupled response of stomatal and mesophyll conductance to light enhances photosynthesis of shade leaves under sunflecks. Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 2762–2773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Deguchi, R.; Koyama, K. Photosynthetic and morphological acclimation to high and low light environments in Petasites japonicus subsp. Giganteus. Forests 2020, 11, 1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Morales, A.; Kaiser, E. Photosynthetic acclimation to fluctuating irradiance in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Landolt, E. Biosystematic investigations in the family of duckweeds (Lemnaceae), II: The family of Lemnaceae: A monographic study 1. Veröffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH 1986, 95, 638. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mateo-Elizalde, C.; Lynn, J.; Ernst, E.; Martienssen, R. Duckweeds. Curr. Biol. 2023, 33, 89–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Skillman, J.B.; Strain, B.R.; Osmond, C.B. Contrasting patterns of photosynthetic acclimation and photoinhibition in two evergreen herbs from a winter deciduous forest. Oecologia 1996, 107, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Klich, M.G.; Mújica, M.B.; Fernández, O.A. Stomatal morphology and ontogeny in Spirodela intermedia W. Koch. Aquat. Bot. 1986, 26, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bauer, R.; Huber, W.; Sankhla, N. Effect of abscisic acid on photosynthesis in Lemna minor L. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenphysiologie 1976, 77, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Smith, J.M.H. The Effect of abscisic acid on growth, photosynthetic rate and carbohydrate metabolism in Lemna minor L. New Phytol. 1976, 76, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  34. White, S.L.; Wise, R.R. Anatomy and ultrastructure of Wolffia columbiana and Wolffia borealis, two nonvascular aquatic angiosperms. Int. J. Plant Sci. 1998, 159, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kwak, M.; Kim, I. Turion as dormant structure in Spirodela polyrhiza. Korean J. Microsc. 2008, 38, 307–314. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones, D.H.; Atkinson, B.S.; Ware, A.; Sturrock, C.J.; Bishopp, A.; Wells, D.M. Preparation, scanning and analysis of duckweed using X-ray computed microtomography. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 617830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Borisjuk, N.; Peterson, A.A.; Lv, J.; Qu, G.; Luo, Q.; Shi, L.; Chen, G.; Kishchenko, O.; Zhou, Y.; Shi, J. Structural and biochemical properties of duckweed surface cuticle. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shrestha, S.; Mahat, J.; Shrestha, J.; Madhav, K.C.; Paudel, K. Influence of high-temperature stress on rice growth and development. A review. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Okamoto, A.; Koyama, K.; Bhusal, N. Diurnal change of the photosynthetic light-response curve of Buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), an emergent aquatic plant. Plants 2022, 11, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Stewart, J.J.; Adams, W.W., III; López-Pozo, M.; Doherty Garcia, N.; McNamara, M.; Escobar, C.M.; Demmig-Adams, B. Features of the duckweed lemna that support rapid growth under extremes of light intensity. Cells 2021, 10, 1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Demmig-Adams, B.; López-Pozo, M.; Polutchko, S.K.; Fourounjian, P.; Stewart, J.J.; Zenir, M.C.; Adams, W.W. III. Growth and nutritional quality of Lemnaceae viewed comparatively in an ecological and evolutionary context. Plants 2022, 11, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Campany, C.E.; Medlyn, B.E.; Duursma, R.A. Reduced growth due to belowground sink limitation is not fully explained by reduced photosynthesis. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 1042–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Adams, W.W., III; Muller, O.; Cohu, C.M.; Demmig-Adams, B. May photoinhibition be a consequence, rather than a cause, of limited plant productivity? Photosyn. Res. 2013, 117, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Vicente, R.; Bolger, A.M.; Martínez-Carrasco, R.; Pérez, P.; Gutiérrez, E.; Usadel, B.; Morcuende, R. De novo transcriptome analysis of durum wheat flag leaves provides new insights into the regulatory response to elevated CO2 and high temperature. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Jauregui, I.; Pozueta-Romero, J.; Córdoba, J.; Avice, J.C.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.M.; Baroja-Fernández, E.; Aranjuelo, I. Unraveling the role of transient starch in the response of Arabidopsis to elevated CO2 under long-day conditions. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 155, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nieuwland, M.; Geerdink, P.; Engelen-Smit, N.P.E.; van der Meer, I.M.; America, A.H.P.; Mes, J.J.; Kootstra, A.M.J.; Henket, J.T.M.M.; Mulder, W.J. Isolation and gelling properties of duckweed protein concentrate. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 1, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Polutchko, S.K.; Adams, W.W., III; Escobar, C.M.; Demmig-Adams, B. Conquering space with crops that produce ample oxygen and antioxidants. Oxygen 2022, 2, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stewart, J.J.; Adams, W.W., III; Escobar, C.M.; López-Pozo, M.; Demmig-Adams, B. Growth and essential carotenoid micronutrients in Lemna gibba as a function of growth light intensity. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Martindale, W.; Bowes, G. The effects of irradiance and CO2 on the activity and activation of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase in the aquatic plant Spirodela polyrhiza. J. Exp. Bot. 1996, 47, 781–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Oguchi, R.; Hikosaka, K.; Hirose, T. Leaf anatomy as a constraint for photosynthetic acclimation: Differential responses in leaf anatomy to increasing growth irradiance among three deciduous trees. Plant Cell Environ. 2005, 28, 916–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oguchi, R.; Hikosaka, K.; Hirose, T. Does the photosynthetic light-acclimation need change in leaf anatomy? Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sims, D.A.; Pearcy, R.W. Response of leaf anatomy and photosynthetic capacity in Alocasia macrorrhiza (Araceae) to a transfer from low to high light. Am. J. Bot. 1992, 79, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Polutchko, S.K.; Stewart, J.J.; Adams, W.W., III; Demmig-Adams, B. Photosynthesis and foliar vascular adjustments to growth light intensity in summer annual species with symplastic and apoplastic phloem loading. J. Plant Physiol. 2021, 267, 153532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Adams, W.W., III; Stewart, J.J.; Polutchko, S.K.; Demmig-Adams, B. Leaf vasculature and the upper limit of photosynthesis. In The Leaf: A Platform for Performing Photosynthesis in Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration; Adams, W.W., III, Terashima, I., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 44, pp. 27–54. [Google Scholar]
  55. Cohu, C.M.; Muller, O.; Stewart, J.J.; Demmig-Adams, B.; Adams, W.W., III. Association between minor loading vein architecture and light- and CO2-saturated rates of photosynthetic oxygen evolution among Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes from different latitudes. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 22, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stewart, J.J.; Polutchko, S.K.; Adams, W.W., III; Demmig-Adams, B. Acclimation of Swedish and Italian ecotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana to light intensity. Photosynth. Res. 2017, 134, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sree, K.S.; Sudakaran, S.; Appenroth, K.J. How fast can angiosperms grow? Species and clonal diversity of growth rates in the genus Wolffia (Lemnaceae). Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cedergreen, N.; Madsen, T.V. Nitrogen uptake by the floating macrophyte Lemna minor. New Phytol. 2002, 155, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Acosta, K.; Appenroth, K.J.; Borisjuk, L.; Edelman, M.; Heinig, U.; Jansen, M.A.K.; Oyama, T.; Pasaribu, B.; Schubert, I.; Sorrels, S.; et al. Return of the Lemnaceae: Duckweed as a model plant system in the genomics and postgenomics era. Plant Cell. 2021, 33, 3207–3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kim, I.S. Development of the root system in Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden (Lemnaceae). J. Plant Biol. 2007, 50, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Grace, S.C.; Logan, B.A. Acclimation of foliar antioxidant systems to growth irradiance in three broad-leaved evergreen species. Plant Physiol. 1996, 112, 1631–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Müller-Moulé, P.; Havaux, M.; Niyogi, K.K. Zeaxanthin deficiency enhances the high light sensitivity of an ascorbate-deficient mutant of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2003, 133, 748–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Neubauer, C.; Yamamoto, H.Y. Membrane barriers and Mehler-peroxidase reaction limit the ascorbate available for violaxanthin de-epoxidase activity in intact chloroplasts. Photosynth. Res. 1994, 39, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Müller-Schüssele, S.J.; Wang, R.; Gütle, D.D.; Romer, J.; Rodriguez-Franco, M.; Scholz, M.; Buchert, F.; Lüth, V.M.; Kopriva, S.; Dörmann, P.; et al. Chloroplasts require glutathione reductase to balance reactive oxygen species and maintain efficient photosynthesis. Plant J. 2020, 103, 1140–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Appenroth, K.J.; Sree, K.S.; Böhm, V.; Hammann, S.; Vetter, W.; Leiterer, M.; Jahreis, G. Nutritional value of duckweeds (Lemnaceae) as human food. Food Chem. 2017, 217, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Natesh, H.N.; Abbey, L.; Asiedu, S.K. An overview of nutritional and anti nutritional factors in green leafy vegetables. Hortic. Int. J. 2017, 1, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Diotallevi, C.; Angeli, A.; Vrhovsek, U.; Gobbetti, M.; Shai, I.; Lapidot, M.; Tuohy, K. Measuring phenolic compounds in Mankai: A novel polyphenol and amino rich plant protein source. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2020, 79, E434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yaskolka Meir, A.; Tuohy, K.; von Bergen, M.; Krajmalnik-Brown, R.; Heinig, U.; Zelicha, H.; Tsaban, G.; Rinott, E.; Kaplan, A.; Aharoni, A.; et al. The metabolomic-gut-clinical axis of mankai plant-derived dietary polyphenols. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hu, Z.; Fang, Y.; Yi, Z.; Tian, X.; Li, J.; Jin, Y.; He, K.; Liu, P.; Du, A.; Huang, Y.; et al. Determining the nutritional value and antioxidant capacity of duckweed (Wolffia arrhiza) under artificial conditions. LWT 2022, 153, 112477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pagliuso, D.; Palacios Jara, C.E.; Grandis, A.; Lam, E.; Pena Ferreira, M.J.; Buckeridge, M.S. Flavonoids from duckweeds: Potential applications in the human diet. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 44981–44988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Demmig-Adams, B. Survey of thermal energy dissipation and pigment composition in sun and shade leaves. Plant Cell Physiol. 1998, 39, 474–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Demmig-Adams, B.; Winter, K.; Winkelmann, E.; Krüger, A.; Czygan, F.C. Photosynthetic characteristics and the ratios of chlorophyll, β-carotene, and the components of the xanthophyll cycle upon a sudden increase in growth light regime in several plant species. Bot. Acta 1989, 102, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Demmig-Adams, B.; Moeller, D.L.; Logan, B.A.; Adams, W.W., III. Positive correlation between levels of retained zeaxanthin + antheraxanthin and degree of photoinhibition in shade leaves of Schefflera arboricola (Hayata) Merrill. Planta 1998, 205, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brodribb, T.J.; McAdam, S.A.M.; Carins Murphy, M.R. Xylem and stomata, coordinated through time and space. Plant Cell Environ. 2017, 40, 872–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cohu, C.M.; Lombardi, E.; Adams, W.W., III; Demmig-Adams, B. Increased nutritional quality of plants for long-duration spaceflight missions through choice of plant variety and manipulation of growth conditions. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 94, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stewart, J.J.; Demmig-Adams, B.; Cohu, C.M.; Wenzl, C.A.; Muller, O.; Adams, W.W., III. Growth temperature impact on leaf form and function in Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes from northern and southern Europe. Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 1549–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Duong, T.P.; Tiedje, J.M. Nitrogen fixation by naturally occurring duckweed–cyanobacterial associations. Can. J. Microbiol. 1985, 31, 327–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Schenk, R.U.; Hildebrandt, A.C. Medium and techniques for induction and growth of monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plant cell cultures. Can. J. Bot. 1972, 50, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Polutchko, S.K.; Stewart, J.J.; Mcnamara, M.; Garcia, N.D.; López-Pozo, M.; Adams, W.W., III; Demmig-Adams, B. Lemna as a sustainable, highly nutritious crop: Nutrient production in different light environments. Nutraceuticals 2022, 2, 350–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Roubeau Dumont, E.; Larue, C.; Pujol, B.; Lamaze, T.; Elger, A. Environmental variations mediate duckweed (Lemna minor L.) sensitivity to copper exposure through phenotypic plasticity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 14106–14115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Harper, J.E. Soil and symbiotic nitrogen requirements for optimum soybean production. Crop. Sci. 1974, 14, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Driever, S.M.; Van Nes, E.H.; Roijackers, R.M.M. Growth limitation of Lemna minor due to high plant density. Aquat. Bot. 2005, 81, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 01928 g001 550
Figure 1. Diurnal changes in (a,b) the level of photons incident on the leaf surface (grey symbols; measured perpendicular to the lamina of the leaf, which was near-horizonal), the fraction of these photons utilized in photosynthesis (green symbols: photochemical route as incident PFD × [Fm’ − F]/Fm’), and the fraction of photons dissipated via the regulated photoprotective non-photochemical route (orange symbols; as incident PFD × [0.8 − (Fv’/Fm’)]), (c,d) the estimated rate of photosynthetic electron transport (green symbols and shading; incident photons × [Fm’ − F]/Fm’; same data as shown in panels (a,c) for the sun-exposed leaf), and (e,f) the level of non-photochemical fluorescence quenching (orange symbols and shading) as another estimate of the non-photochemical route (thermal dissipation of excess excitation energy) in leaves of the evergreen groundcover Vinca major. All data in panels (a–d) are given in units of µmol photons m−2 s−1 as incident photons or photons utilized in either the photochemical or non-photochemical route. Plants were growing in either a sun-exposed location (a,c,e) or in deep shade (b,d,f) with no direct sun exposure or self-shading from overgrowth by younger leaves (i.e., only sky radiation). After data from Demmig-Adams et al. [16]; see there for descriptions of the plants and methods. F, steady-state fluorescence; Fm and Fm’, maximal fluorescence yield in darkened leaves or leaves exposed to natural light, respectively.
Figure 1. Diurnal changes in (a,b) the level of photons incident on the leaf surface (grey symbols; measured perpendicular to the lamina of the leaf, which was near-horizonal), the fraction of these photons utilized in photosynthesis (green symbols: photochemical route as incident PFD × [Fm’ − F]/Fm’), and the fraction of photons dissipated via the regulated photoprotective non-photochemical route (orange symbols; as incident PFD × [0.8 − (Fv’/Fm’)]), (c,d) the estimated rate of photosynthetic electron transport (green symbols and shading; incident photons × [Fm’ − F]/Fm’; same data as shown in panels (a,c) for the sun-exposed leaf), and (e,f) the level of non-photochemical fluorescence quenching (orange symbols and shading) as another estimate of the non-photochemical route (thermal dissipation of excess excitation energy) in leaves of the evergreen groundcover Vinca major. All data in panels (a–d) are given in units of µmol photons m−2 s−1 as incident photons or photons utilized in either the photochemical or non-photochemical route. Plants were growing in either a sun-exposed location (a,c,e) or in deep shade (b,d,f) with no direct sun exposure or self-shading from overgrowth by younger leaves (i.e., only sky radiation). After data from Demmig-Adams et al. [16]; see there for descriptions of the plants and methods. F, steady-state fluorescence; Fm and Fm’, maximal fluorescence yield in darkened leaves or leaves exposed to natural light, respectively.
Plants 12 01928 g001
Plants 12 01928 g002 550
Figure 2. Pool sizes of the xanthophyll cycle pigments (VAZ) and of ascorbate in leaves of the vine Stephania japonica growing naturally in either deep shade, with exposure to sunflecks, or in full sun to the south of Middle Head on the coast of north-eastern New South Wales, Australia, in June of 1994. Data are expressed as percentages of maximum values in the plants growing in full sun (144 mmol VAZ mol Chl−1 and 342 µmol ascorbate m−2 fresh weight). All differences between leaves growing in different light environments were statistically significant. For original data and statistical information, see Adams et al. [6]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Figure 2. Pool sizes of the xanthophyll cycle pigments (VAZ) and of ascorbate in leaves of the vine Stephania japonica growing naturally in either deep shade, with exposure to sunflecks, or in full sun to the south of Middle Head on the coast of north-eastern New South Wales, Australia, in June of 1994. Data are expressed as percentages of maximum values in the plants growing in full sun (144 mmol VAZ mol Chl−1 and 342 µmol ascorbate m−2 fresh weight). All differences between leaves growing in different light environments were statistically significant. For original data and statistical information, see Adams et al. [6]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Plants 12 01928 g002
Plants 12 01928 g003 550
Figure 3. Rapid diurnal fluctuations in (a) photon flux density incident on a Stephania japonica leaf (PFDi), (b) the estimated rate of photosynthetic electron transport (as fraction of photons utilized in the photochemical route, PFDi × [Fm’ − F]/Fm’), and (c) the level of non-photochemical fluorescence quenching (red; as an estimate of thermal dissipation of excess excitation energy) as well as the conversion state of the xanthophyll cycle pool (orange). Data from Adams et al. [6]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Figure 3. Rapid diurnal fluctuations in (a) photon flux density incident on a Stephania japonica leaf (PFDi), (b) the estimated rate of photosynthetic electron transport (as fraction of photons utilized in the photochemical route, PFDi × [Fm’ − F]/Fm’), and (c) the level of non-photochemical fluorescence quenching (red; as an estimate of thermal dissipation of excess excitation energy) as well as the conversion state of the xanthophyll cycle pool (orange). Data from Adams et al. [6]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Plants 12 01928 g003
Plants 12 01928 g005 550
Figure 5. (a) Photosynthetic capacity (light- and CO2-saturated rate of photosynthetic oxygen evolution) and volume per leaf area (as the mathematical product of cross-sectional area per vein × vein length per leaf area) for (b) phloem and (c) xylem cells in minor veins from leaves of two ecotypes (from Sweden, Sw; from Italy, It) of Arabidopsis thaliana grown under low (100 µmol photons m−2 s−1) and high (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1) PFD (9-h photoperiod) under controlled conditions (20 °C leaf temperature). Data are expressed as percentages of maximum values for the Swedish ecotype grown under high PFD (photosynthetic capacity, 71.9 µmol O2 m−2 s−1 and 4057 and 1390 mm3 m−2 for volume per leaf area of phloem and xylem, respectively). Significant differences are signified by asterisks (**, p<0.01; ***, p<0.001). n.s. = not significant. For original data and further statistical information, see Stewart et al. [56].
Figure 5. (a) Photosynthetic capacity (light- and CO2-saturated rate of photosynthetic oxygen evolution) and volume per leaf area (as the mathematical product of cross-sectional area per vein × vein length per leaf area) for (b) phloem and (c) xylem cells in minor veins from leaves of two ecotypes (from Sweden, Sw; from Italy, It) of Arabidopsis thaliana grown under low (100 µmol photons m−2 s−1) and high (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1) PFD (9-h photoperiod) under controlled conditions (20 °C leaf temperature). Data are expressed as percentages of maximum values for the Swedish ecotype grown under high PFD (photosynthetic capacity, 71.9 µmol O2 m−2 s−1 and 4057 and 1390 mm3 m−2 for volume per leaf area of phloem and xylem, respectively). Significant differences are signified by asterisks (**, p<0.01; ***, p<0.001). n.s. = not significant. For original data and further statistical information, see Stewart et al. [56].
Plants 12 01928 g005
Plants 12 01928 g006 550
Figure 6. Pools of the xanthophyll cycle pigments (VAZ), ascorbate, and glutathione in leaves of the evergreen groundcover Vinca major grown under 100 (blue bars) and 1200 (orange bars) μmol photons m−2 s−1. Data are given as percentages of maximum values in plants grown under 1200 μmol photons m−2 s−1 for each compound (VAZ = 91 mmol mol Chl−1, ascorbate = 21 µmol g−1 fresh weight, and glutathione = 968 nmol g−1 fresh weight). All differences between leaves grown under low versus high PFD were statistically significant. For original data and statistical information, see Grace and Logan [61]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Figure 6. Pools of the xanthophyll cycle pigments (VAZ), ascorbate, and glutathione in leaves of the evergreen groundcover Vinca major grown under 100 (blue bars) and 1200 (orange bars) μmol photons m−2 s−1. Data are given as percentages of maximum values in plants grown under 1200 μmol photons m−2 s−1 for each compound (VAZ = 91 mmol mol Chl−1, ascorbate = 21 µmol g−1 fresh weight, and glutathione = 968 nmol g−1 fresh weight). All differences between leaves grown under low versus high PFD were statistically significant. For original data and statistical information, see Grace and Logan [61]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Plants 12 01928 g006
Plants 12 01928 g007 550
Figure 7. Changes in xanthophyll cycle (VAZ) pool and Z+A levels in leaves of evergreen Schefflera arboricola grown under low (LL) or high (HL) PFD (100 or 1200 µmol photons m−2 s−1, respectively) and then subjected to 24-h exposures to 1200 µmol photons m−2 s−1. Data from Demmig-Adams et al. [71]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Figure 7. Changes in xanthophyll cycle (VAZ) pool and Z+A levels in leaves of evergreen Schefflera arboricola grown under low (LL) or high (HL) PFD (100 or 1200 µmol photons m−2 s−1, respectively) and then subjected to 24-h exposures to 1200 µmol photons m−2 s−1. Data from Demmig-Adams et al. [71]. A, antheraxanthin; V, violaxanthin; Z, zeaxanthin.
Plants 12 01928 g007
Plants 12 01928 g008 550
Figure 8. Xanthophyll cycle components (µmol m−2) in L. minor grown under three PFD (16 h light/8 h dark) conditions, (i) high PFD (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1) for four days, (ii) low PFD (200 µmol photons m−2 s−1) for four days, and (iii) 200 μmol photons m−2 s−1 for three days followed by transfer (→) to continuous high light (1000 μmol photons m−2 s−1) for 24 h. V = Violaxanthin, A = antheraxanthin, and Z = zeaxanthin.
Figure 8. Xanthophyll cycle components (µmol m−2) in L. minor grown under three PFD (16 h light/8 h dark) conditions, (i) high PFD (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1) for four days, (ii) low PFD (200 µmol photons m−2 s−1) for four days, and (iii) 200 μmol photons m−2 s−1 for three days followed by transfer (→) to continuous high light (1000 μmol photons m−2 s−1) for 24 h. V = Violaxanthin, A = antheraxanthin, and Z = zeaxanthin.
Plants 12 01928 g008
Plants 12 01928 g009 550
Figure 9. Comparison of (a) photosynthetic capacity (light- and CO2-saturated rate of oxygen evolution) and (b) leaf dry mass per area (LMA) for plants of an A. thaliana Swedish ecotype grown either at warm (25 °C; red) or cool (14 °C; blue) leaf temperature from seedling stage or suddenly transferred to 14 °C for one week (red/blue) after growth (with development of fully mature leaves for characterization) at 25 °C. Data are given as percentages of the maximum values for A. thaliana grown from seedling stage under 14 °C (75 µmol O2 m−2 s−1 and 62 g m−2, respectively, for photosynthetic capacity and LMA). Significant differences among the three treatments are signified by lower-case letters. For original data and further statistical information, see Adams et al. [3].
Figure 9. Comparison of (a) photosynthetic capacity (light- and CO2-saturated rate of oxygen evolution) and (b) leaf dry mass per area (LMA) for plants of an A. thaliana Swedish ecotype grown either at warm (25 °C; red) or cool (14 °C; blue) leaf temperature from seedling stage or suddenly transferred to 14 °C for one week (red/blue) after growth (with development of fully mature leaves for characterization) at 25 °C. Data are given as percentages of the maximum values for A. thaliana grown from seedling stage under 14 °C (75 µmol O2 m−2 s−1 and 62 g m−2, respectively, for photosynthetic capacity and LMA). Significant differences among the three treatments are signified by lower-case letters. For original data and further statistical information, see Adams et al. [3].
Plants 12 01928 g009
Table
Table 1. Changes in light- and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacity per frond area or per dry mass and dry mass per frond area in L. minor over time following transfer from a sun-exposed pond (with negligible nitrate and ammonium) to ample nutrient supply (1/2 Schenk and Hildebrandt medium) and 16/8 h photoperiod under 200 µmol photons m−2 s−1 for 14 days. Mean values ± standard deviations, n = 3.
Table 1. Changes in light- and CO2-saturated photosynthetic capacity per frond area or per dry mass and dry mass per frond area in L. minor over time following transfer from a sun-exposed pond (with negligible nitrate and ammonium) to ample nutrient supply (1/2 Schenk and Hildebrandt medium) and 16/8 h photoperiod under 200 µmol photons m−2 s−1 for 14 days. Mean values ± standard deviations, n = 3.
1471014
Photosynthesis per area
(µmol O2 m−2 s−1)		40.3 ± 5.659.8 ± 10.871.1 ± 4.382.9 ± 7.4100.4 ± 13.5
Dry mass (g m−2)26.0 ± 1.139.1 ± 2.050.4 ± 2.062.5 ± 2.758.7 ± 2.5
Photosynthesis per dry mass
(µmol O2 g−1 s−1)		1.6 ± 0.21.4 ± 0.11.4 ± 0.11.3 ± 0.11.7 ± 0.2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

López-Pozo, M.; Adams, W.W., III; Polutchko, S.K.; Demmig-Adams, B. Terrestrial and Floating Aquatic Plants Differ in Acclimation to Light Environment. Plants 2023, 12, 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101928

AMA Style

López-Pozo M, Adams WW III, Polutchko SK, Demmig-Adams B. Terrestrial and Floating Aquatic Plants Differ in Acclimation to Light Environment. Plants. 2023; 12(10):1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101928

Chicago/Turabian Style

López-Pozo, Marina, William W. Adams, III, Stephanie K. Polutchko, and Barbara Demmig-Adams. 2023. "Terrestrial and Floating Aquatic Plants Differ in Acclimation to Light Environment" Plants 12, no. 10: 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101928

APA Style

López-Pozo, M., Adams, W. W., III, Polutchko, S. K., & Demmig-Adams, B. (2023). Terrestrial and Floating Aquatic Plants Differ in Acclimation to Light Environment. Plants, 12(10), 1928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101928

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop