Photosynthesis: ancient, essential, complex, diverse … and in need of improvement in a changing world

New PhytologistVolume 213, Issue 1 p. 43-47 MeetingsFree Access Photosynthesis: ancient, essential, complex, diverse … and in need of improvement in a changing world Ülo Niinemets, Corresponding Author Ülo Niinemets ylo.niinemets@emu.ee Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu, 51014 Estonia Estonian Academy of Sciences, Kohtu 6, Tallinn, 10130 Estonia(Author for correspondence: tel +372 53457189; email ylo.niinemets@emu.ee)Search for more papers by this authorJoseph A. Berry, Joseph A. Berry Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama St, Stanford, CA, 94305 USASearch for more papers by this authorSusanne von Caemmerer, Susanne von Caemmerer Plant Science Division, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorDonald R. Ort, Donald R. Ort USDA Agricultural Research Service & Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801 USASearch for more papers by this authorMartin A. J. Parry, Martin A. J. Parry Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ UKSearch for more papers by this authorHendrik Poorter, Hendrik Poorter Plant Sciences (IBG-2), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, 52425 GermanySearch for more papers by this author Ülo Niinemets, Corresponding Author Ülo Niinemets ylo.niinemets@emu.ee Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu, 51014 Estonia Estonian Academy of Sciences, Kohtu 6, Tallinn, 10130 Estonia(Author for correspondence: tel +372 53457189; email ylo.niinemets@emu.ee)Search for more papers by this authorJoseph A. Berry, Joseph A. Berry Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama St, Stanford, CA, 94305 USASearch for more papers by this authorSusanne von Caemmerer, Susanne von Caemmerer Plant Science Division, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorDonald R. Ort, Donald R. Ort USDA Agricultural Research Service & Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801 USASearch for more papers by this authorMartin A. J. Parry, Martin A. J. Parry Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ UKSearch for more papers by this authorHendrik Poorter, Hendrik Poorter Plant Sciences (IBG-2), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich, 52425 GermanySearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14307Citations: 24AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat The 17th International Congress on Photosynthesis Research – Photosynthesis in a Changing World, Maastricht, the Netherlands, August, 2016 The 17th International Congress on Photosynthesis Research covered an extraordinarily broad range of topics from submolecular-scale biophysical details of energy transfer and basic chemistry of artificial photosynthesis to ecophysiology and crop physiology at whole leaf, whole plant and global scales. Recognizing that photosynthesis is the key source of energy for life on Earth and given the rapid pace of global environmental change, and the pressure of an increasing human population (e.g. Tilman et al., 2011; Alexandratos & Bruinsma, 2012), the photosynthesis research community faces two important challenges: (1) understanding the mechanisms, vulnerabilities and potentials for improvement of the photosynthetic process; and (2) developing better techniques for monitoring, modeling and rapid screening of photosynthesis at scales ranging from the individual genotype (Fiorani & Schurr, 2013) to fields, bread-baskets (Guan et al., 2016; Pinto et al., 2016) and global vegetation units (Rogers et al., 2016). Addressing these challenges is essential to identify and incorporate new genetic improvements in the basic mechanism, and to understand and anticipate the role of photosynthesis in the responses of the global biosphere to climate and anthropogenic changes. In this regard we take note of the decision made this year by the European Space Agency (ESA) to build a satellite, Fluorescence Explorer (FLEX) mission, intended specifically for studies of photosynthesis by monitoring a product of photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence. While this will provide an unprecedented new measurement capability, there remain many questions about how to relate this measurement to photosynthesis (Schlau-Cohen & Berry, 2015) and this challenge will, no doubt, be a major issue in future congresses. Another challenge to crop improvement is the fact that the photosynthetic process has been fine-tuned by billions of years of natural selection, and is subject to deeply rooted genetic controls shaped in the native environments of the crop ancestors. These may be difficult to change and may not be optimal for current agro-ecosystems. This was nicely demonstrated at the meeting by Lisa Ainsworth (USDA ARS, USA) who reported on mechanisms underlying the historical 80-year improvement in soybean yield showing that soybean yield has been driven largely by a near doubling of harvest index. While the rate of carbon gain per unit leaf area has increased somewhat in modern soybean cultivars, it has been due to increased stomatal conductance and lower water-use efficiency, rather than via increases in photosynthetic capacity (Koester et al., 2016). Yet, photosynthesis is the only yield determinant that is not close to its biological limits (Zhu et al., 2008; Ort et al., 2015), suggesting that increases in photosynthesis might indeed lead to increases in yield. In the following, we focus on meeting highlights pertaining to rate-limiting processes for which improvements could increase crop yield, and on new advancements in monitoring and predictive modeling of plant photosynthesis. Limitation of photosynthesis by Rubisco kinetics and photorespiration Plant photosynthesis is limited by Rubisco (ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase) activity much of the time due to its slow catalytic turnover, and concurrent oxygenase activity that competes with carbon fixation, especially in conditions of low chloroplastic CO2 concentration and higher temperatures. That not all Rubiscos are identical has motivated work, reported at this meeting, on the extensive screening of natural diversity in Rubisco structure and kinetic properties (Galmés et al., 2014b; Whitney et al., 2015; Hermida-Carrera et al., 2016; Orr et al., 2016). Such characterization is essential to underpin attempts to tailor crops to future climates. In particular, model analyses suggest that for many crops replacement of the native Rubisco with the Rubisco of different kinetic properties would increase photosynthesis in future climates/atmospheres (Long et al., 2006; Galmés et al., 2014a). While low expression and poor assembly of transgenic Rubiscos has bedevilled these replacement efforts, Spencer Whitney (Australian National University, Australia) showed promising strategies to engineer foreign Rubisco into tobacco. The use of engineered tobacco plants to test the influence of altered Rubisco kinetics under future realistic environmental conditions was further reported by Danielle Way (University of Western Ontario, Canada). Whitney also emphasized the importance of Rubisco assembly within the chloroplasts and indicated that co-evolution of one of the chaperons, Raf1, with Rubisco (Whitney et al., 2015) might limit the assembly of foreign Rubisco when Rubisco without Raf1 is engineered into plants. Exciting progress in understanding the complex processes in assembly and activation of Rubisco was discussed in the plenary talk of Manajit Heyer-Hartl (Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany; Durão et al., 2015; Hauser et al., 2015), revealing promise that the mechanisms of Rubisco assembly may be soon resolved. The two alternatives to modifying Rubisco are suppression of photorespiration by introducing CO2-concentrating mechanisms such as those present in C4 plants, and direct improvement of photorespiration using novel biochemistries to recover carbon at less energetic cost (Kebeish et al., 2007; Xin et al., 2015). So far, the progress on both fronts has been disappointingly moderate. In a plenary talk, Andreas Weber (University of Düsseldorf, Germany) discussed the recent developments in identification of the intermediate states in the evolution from C3 to C4 photosynthesis by quantitative genetic approaches (Schlueter & Weber, 2016). Identification of such intermediaries is the key to engineering C4 photosynthesis into C3 plants (Schuler et al., 2016). Direct improvement of photorespiration depends on resolving the mismatch between carbon metabolism and energy supply (Xin et al., 2015). As Hermann Bauwe (University of Rostock, Germany) discussed, some photorespiratory bypasses that have been engineered into plants disturb NADH supply to mitochondria and, therefore, can be counterproductive due to suppression of mitochondrial ATP synthesis. To further complicate matters, engineering photorespiration to future conditions also requires consideration of inorganic nitrogen assimilation. Florian Busch (Australian National University, Australia) suggested that linking nitrogen assimilation to photosynthesis by removal of a greater fraction of glycine from the photorespiratory cycle enhances photosynthesis; this can be particularly relevant under conditions of high CO2 when the use of nitrate assimilation is inhibited (Bloom et al., 2010). The importance of the efforts to improve Rubisco and photorespiration was emphasized by Berkeley Walker (University of Düsseldorf, Germany) who showed that despite photorespiration of crops being predicted to decrease under future realistic climate scenarios due to the effect of increasing CO2 concentration being stronger than the higher temperature effect on Rubisco kinetics (Walker et al., 2016), photorespiration will remain a very large drag on C3 photosynthetic efficiency throughout this century. CO2 diffusion limitations of photosynthesis For photosynthesis to occur, CO2 has to diffuse from the surrounding leaves to the sites of CO2 fixation, which are in the chloroplasts in C3 species and in the mesophyll cytosol in C4 species. Compared with the control of photosynthesis by CO2 diffusion from the air to intercellular airspaces due to stomatal conductance, the control by CO2 diffusion from intercellular airspaces into chloroplasts as a result of limited mesophyll conductance is much less understood (Flexas et al., 2012). John Evans (Australian National University, Australia) discussed the control of mesophyll conductance by leaf anatomical characteristics including the intercellular airspace exposed surface area of mesophyll cells, cell wall thickness, and properties of the cell wall and membranes. These are traits that vary among plant functional types and underlay the plant functional type-specific differences in the CO2 sensitivity of photosynthesis (Niinemets et al., 2011). Jennifer McElwain and Charilaos Yiotis (University College Dublin, Ireland) put such structural controls in an evolutionary context to explain the shifts in dominance of ferns, gymnosperms and angiosperms as plants encountered varying CO2 : O2 concentration ratios over geological time. Furthermore, the structural controls are also predicted to alter the distribution of natural vegetation in future atmospheres (Niinemets et al., 2011; Flexas et al., 2016). It is currently less clear how we can explain rapid changes in mesophyll conductance, which have sometimes been observed. Several aquaporins have been shown to enhance CO2 permeability of membranes and John Evans suggested that aquaporins may form part of the answer; however, he pointed out that our quantitative understanding is currently limited by the resolution of techniques that exist for measuring mesophyll conductance (Groszmann et al., 2016). Guillaume Théroux-Rancourt (University of California Davis, USA) further suggested that two-dimensional techniques used to quantify mesophyll conductance may lead to misleading inferences on light dependence of mesophyll conductance, as different cell layers contribute to photosynthesis at low and high light. This suggests that three-dimensional (3D) leaf anatomy needs to be considered in models calculating mesophyll conductance (see also Lloyd et al., 1992). Most of our information on mesophyll conductance has been obtained in C3 species where several measuring techniques exist, including measurements of 13C isotope discrimination or chlorophyll fluorescence combined with gas exchange. These techniques cannot be used to measure mesophyll conductance in C4 species. An exciting advancement has been the use of stable isotopes of oxygen (18O) in CO2 to estimate mesophyll conductance (Gillon & Yakir, 2000; Barbour et al., 2016). Asaph Cousins and his team (Washington State University, USA) have used this technique to quantify mesophyll conductance in several C4 species, demonstrating that mesophyll conductance in C4 species is quantitatively similar to that of C3 species at comparable photosynthetic rates (Ubierna et al., 2016). Furthermore, Cousins demonstrated that mesophyll conductance in C4 species Zea mays, Setaria viridis and Miscanthus × giganteus strongly increased with temperature, as had previously been observed for C3 species (von Caemmerer & Evans, 2015). Improving C3 plant photosynthesis by introducing carbon-concentrating mechanisms (Atkinson et al., 2016) or facilitating diffusion by increasing carbonic anhydrase activity (Terashima et al., 2011) have also been suggested as possible targets for improving photosynthesis. However, the progress has been moderate (Atkinson et al., 2016), and as Bernard Genty (Centre Energie Atomique et Energies Alternatives, France) demonstrated, CO2 backdiffusion and lack of intrachloroplastic compartmentalization implies that faster inorganic carbon conversion to CO2 has only limited effects on photosynthesis. Improving inefficiencies due to limited response to dynamically changing environmental drivers over the short and long term Photosynthetic research in natural field environments and in crop plants has characteristically looked at photosynthesis in steady-state conditions. However, leaves in plant canopies have a light and temperature environment that is under constant fluctuation, and thus, photosynthesis is continually adjusting to such fluctuations. However, reaching full photosynthetic activation upon environmental changes is time-consuming, implying that the environment dynamicity has important consequences for daily carbon gain. Losses in productivity due to limited dynamic responses can result from slow activation of Calvin cycle enzymes, including Rubisco activation by Rubisco activase, time needed to fill up the metabolite pools of the Calvin cycle, limited rate of relaxation of photoprotective nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ), as well as sluggish stomatal movements. Rebekka Wachter (Arizona State University, USA) described new mechanisms for the assembly and regulation of Rubisco activase from higher plants and explained the possible mechanisms underlying the Rubisco activation kinetics (Kuriata et al., 2014; Wachter & Henderson, 2015), while Elizabete Carmo-Silva (Lancaster University, UK) reported on natural variation in the response of Rubisco and Rubisco activase that holds promise for improving daily carbon gain by maintaining a higher average Rubisco activation state in fluctuating light. Ana Lobo (Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brazil) tested the hypothesis that overexpression of 2-carboxy-d-arabinitol-1-phosphate (CA1P) phosphatase (CA1Pase) to more rapidly dephosphorylate the Rubisco inhibitor CA1P to a noninhibitory compound would stimulate Rubisco activity and photosynthesis by decreasing the amount of CA1P in wheat leaves. The surprising outcome was that CA1Pase overexpression resulted in a large drop in Rubisco abundance and photosynthesis, proving that not every good idea goes as planned. Although there is considerable biological variability in the rate of NPQ relaxation (e.g. Adams et al., 2001), there have been surprisingly few efforts to enhance it. Johannes Kromdijk (University of Illinois, USA) reported exciting results showing that the transgenic manipulation of three genes involved in regulating the formation and relaxation of NPQ resulted in tobacco plants that had a significantly higher rate of NPQ relaxation. This, in turn, resulted in significantly higher carbon gain and biomass accumulation in fluctuating light. Tracy Lawson (University of Essex, UK) showed that owing to a mismatch between photosynthetic induction and stomatal response, species differences in stomatal kinetics strongly affect plant water-use efficiency (McAusland et al., 2016. The implications of dynamic environmental conditions on simulated carbon gain at leaf and canopy scales were further considered by Silvere Vialet-Chabrand (University of Essex) and Alejandro Morales Sierre (University of Wageningen, the Netherlands). Compared with past dynamic photosynthesis models (e.g. Pearcy et al., 1997), these new models include mesophyll conductance, chloroplast movements and relaxation of fast and slow components of NPQ, providing tools for rigorous quantification of the dynamic adjustment of photosynthetic traits on plant productivity. Our general feeling from this meeting was that the photosynthesis community is increasingly starting to appreciate the relevance of fast dynamic responses of photosynthesis and their implications for crop yield. Regarding longer-term dynamics, it has long been thought that rising atmospheric CO2 would improve crop yields, particularly during drought events, because it promotes stomatal closure and saves water. ISPR 2016 Calvin Benson Award winner Andrew Leakey (University of Illinois, USA) presented surprising results from eight seasons of FACE experiments showing that increased sensitivity of stomata to physiological drought signals limited the usual CO2 stimulation of photosynthesis, and that an interaction of CO2 enrichment, drought and the deployment of nitrogen-fixing root nodules in dry soil led to a nitrogen deficit in drought years. Thus, in wet years, elevated CO2 improved soybean yield by more than 20%, but severe drought eliminated the stimulation altogether (Gray et al., 2016). Sink–source activity and implications for whole plant photosynthesis Sink strength has long been recognized as an important regulator of photosynthetic carbon gain and yield. The ratio between the supply of carbohydrates by the leaves and the consumption by all plant organs, the source : sink ratio, has been found to be an important player that can upregulate or downregulate photosynthesis. Congming Lu (Chinese Academy of Sciences, China) reported evidence that transgenic rice plants expressing the Arabidopsis phloem-specific sucrose transporter AtSUC2, which loads sucrose into the phloem, showed up to 16% increase in grain yield in field trials. Daisuke Sugiura (University of Tokyo, Japan) manipulated the source : sink balance of a range of species by continuously removing the new leaves, providing low levels of nutrients or high levels of light. Soluble sugars and starch accumulated relative to control plants, but a significant negative correlation with photosynthetic capacity was observed in only one of the species studied. He considered the effect of defoliation more closely and found that it strongly increased the total leaf mass and cell wall mass per leaf area, but decreased stomatal and mesophyll conductance. The implication of these findings is that there could be various independent modes by which source and sink interact. Although sink–source effects were seemingly an underrepresented area at the Congress, resolving the controls of sink strength is of paramount significance for efforts targeted to improve crop photosynthesis under future climates. Improvements in predicting and monitoring photosynthesis The steady-state photosynthesis model of Farquhar et al. (1980) is now widely used in simulating photosynthesis at scales ranging from leaf to globe because of its simplicity, ease of parameterization and extensive validation. Since the model development, there have been uncertainties in description of the light reactions of photosynthesis, in particular, about how the balance of ATP and NADPH is achieved, and what limits photosynthesis in feedback-inhibited conditions (Sharkey, 1985). Xinyou Yin (University of Wageningen, the Netherlands) extended the Farquhar et al. (1980) steady-state model by including cyclic and pseudocyclic electron flows and distribution of light between photosystems I and II (PSI and PSII). David Kramer (Michigan State University, USA) described an approach using cost-effective distributed, cloud-linked instrumentation based on measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence for studies of photosynthesis in agriculture, ecology and climate research. Point measurements taken by a large number of operators all over the world are automatically reported to a central cloud-based server where machine learning algorithms can be used to analyze simultaneous data from many locations, revealing hidden relationships and allowing for efficient gap-filling strategies and integrated estimates to be made. This is highly promising, as measuring light reactions of photosynthesis is principally the only option for simple and fast screening of photosynthetic activity in multiple locations and for large-scale assessment of photosynthetic activity of plants (Guan et al., 2016; Pinto et al., 2016). Several talks focused on remote sensing of fluorescence emitted from chlorophyll of photosynthetic organisms in response to passive solar illumination. Unlike other forms of remote sensing, this measurement is tied specifically, and mechanistically, to the photosynthetic process (Schlau-Cohen & Berry, 2015). The fact that this signal can now be measured from space opens up new possibilities for investigating photosynthetic mechanisms at a planetary scale, and new challenges to interpret this measurement. Presentations dealt with retrieval of fluorescence from the global oceans and from the land; with measurements at smaller scales designed to provide 'ground-truth' for the global measurements, and with model development designed to bridge the gap between mechanistic studies of photosynthesis at the leaf or chloroplast scale and experimental observations of fluorescence emitted from complex canopies. Uwe Rascher (Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany) presented an overview of the FLEX mission recently selected by the ESA. FLEX will be the first satellite designed specifically for retrieval of fluorescence from terrestrial plants, and is expected to launch in 2022. Rascher also described extensive ground- and aircraft-based measurements that have paved the way for this mission. Most important is the visualization of large differences between vegetation types (e.g. crops and forests) in fluorescence that correspond to differences in their photosynthetic rates. Fluorescence was also shown to be a sensitive indicator of the presence of plant stress, supporting the prospect that this satellite will have a major impact on efforts to understand photosynthesis at a planetary scale. Christiaan van der Tol (University of Twente, the Netherlands) described a model developed to simulate and assimilate satellite observations to invert for important vegetation properties (like Rubisco levels) that are known to control productivity (Tol et al., 2014). While the recent progress in remote sensing by gauging solar-induced fluorescence has been truly amazing, there are still uncertainties in the mechanistic aspects of fluorescence, especially the relative roles of PSI and PSII and NPQ in the passive fluorescence observed by aircraft and satellites, and therefore, quantification of the relationship between fluorescence and productivity still remains challenging. Outlook and future perspectives The conference showed exciting examples where steps forward were made in understanding and manipulating components of the photosynthetic process, in part by clever experimentation, in part by changing genes or gene expression. What we hope to see for the next meeting in 2020 in Rotorua, New Zealand, is that people are able to combine these insights to stack various changes onto each other, thereby reaching improvements in productivity that would go beyond the values that have been reported for those changes individually. Another great step forward would be the maturation of techniques for satellite-based remote sensing of traits of the photosynthetic process such that they will indeed reveal new possibilities for investigating photosynthesis and photosynthetic mechanisms at a planetary scale. Acknowledgements The authors thank Uwe Rascher, Rhys Wyber and Atsuko Kanazawa for providing comments on an earlier draft of this article. References Adams WW III, Demmig-Adams B, Rosenstiel TH, Ebbert V. 2001. Dependence of photosynthesis and energy dissipation activity upon growth form and light environment during the winter. Photosynthesis Research 67: 51– 62. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision no. 12-03. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Atkinson N, Feike D, Mackinder LC, Meyer MT, Griffiths H, Jonikas MC, Smith AM, McCormick AJ. 2016. Introducing an algal carbon-concentrating mechanism into higher plants: location and incorporation of key components. Plant Biotechnology Journal 14: 1302– 1315. Barbour MM, Evans JR, Simonin KA, von Caemmerer S. 2016. Online CO2 and H2O oxygen isotope fractionation allows estimation of mesophyll conductance in C4 plants, and reveals that mesophyll conductance decreases as leaves age in both C4 and C3 plants. New Phytologist 210: 875– 889. Bloom AJ, Burger M, Rubio Asensio JS, Cousins AB. 2010. Carbon dioxide enrichment inhibits nitrate assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis. Science 328: 899– 903. von Caemmerer S, Evans JR. 2015. Temperature responses of mesophyll conductance differ greatly between species. Plant, Cell & Environment 38: 629– 637. Durão P, Aigner H, Nagy P, Mueller-Cajar O, Hartl FU, Hayer-Hartl M. 2015. Opposing effects of folding and assembly chaperones on evolvability of Rubisco. Nature Chemical Biology 11: 148– 155. Farquhar GD, von Caemmerer S, Berry JA. 1980. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149: 78– 90. Fiorani F, Schurr U. 2013. Future scenarios for plant phenotyping. Annual Review of Plant Biology 64: 267– 291. Flexas J, Barbour MM, Brendel O, Cabrera HM, Carriquí M, Diaz-Espejo A, Douthe C, Dreyer E, Ferrio JP, Gago J et al. 2012. Mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO2: an unappreciated central player in photosynthesis. Plant Science 193–194: 70– 84. Flexas J, Díaz-Espejo A, Conesa MA, Coopman R, Douthe C, Gago J, Gallé A, Galmés J, Medrano H, Ribas-Carbo M et al. 2016. Mesophyll conductance to CO2 and Rubisco as targets for improving intrinsic water use efficiency in C3 plants. Plant, Cell & Environment 39: 965– 982. Galmés J, Conesa MÀ, Díaz-Espejo A, Mir A, Perdomo JA, Niinemets Ü, Flexas J. 2014a. Rubisco catalytic properties optimized for present and future climatic conditions. Plant Science 226: 61– 70. Galmés J, Kapralov MV, Andralojc PJ, Conesa MA, Keys AJ, Parry MA, Flexas J. 2014b. Expanding knowledge of the Rubisco kinetics variability in plant species: environmental and evolutionary trends. Plant, Cell & Environment 37: 1989– 2001. Gillon JS, Yakir D. 2000. Internal conductance to CO2 diffusion and (COO)-O18 discrimination in C3 leaves. Plant Physiology 123: 201– 213. Gray SB, Dermody O, Klein SP, Locke AM, McGrath JM, Paul RE, Rosenthal DM, Ruiz-Vera UM, Siebers MH, Strellner R et al. 2016. Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean. Nature Plants 2: 16132. Groszmann M, Osborn HL, Evans JR. 2016. Carbon dioxide and water transport through plant aquaporins. Plant, Cell & Environment. doi: 10.1111/pce.12844. Guan K, Berry JA, Zhang Y, Joiner J, Guanter L, Badgley G, Lobell DB. 2016. Improving the monitoring of crop productivity using spaceborne solar-induced fluorescence. Global Change Biology 22: 716– 726. Hauser T, Popilka L, Hartl FU, Hayer-Hartl M. 2015. Role of auxiliary proteins in Rubisco biogenesis and function. Nature Plants 1: 15065. Hermida-Carrera C, Kapralov MV, Galmés J. 2016. Rubisco catalytic properties and temperature response in crops. Plant Physiology 171: 2549– 2561. Kebeish R, Niessen M, Thiruveedhi K, Bari R, Hirsch H-J, Rosenkranz R, Stäbler N, Schönfeld B, Kreuzaler F, Peterhänsel C. 2007. Chloroplastic photorespiratory bypass increases photosynthesis and biomass production in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature Biotechnology 25: 593– 599. Koester RP, Nohl BM, Diers BW, Ainsworth EA. 2016. Has photosynthetic capacity increased with 80 years of soybean breeding? An examination of historical soybean cultivars. Plant, Cell & Environment 39: 1058– 1067. Kuriata AM, Chakraborty M, Henderson JN, Hazra S, Serban AJ, Pham TVT, Levitus M, Wachter RM. 2014. ATP and magnesium promote cotton short-form ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) activase hexamer formation at low micromolar concentrations. Biochemistry 53: 7232– 7246. Lloyd J, Syvertsen JP, Kriedemann PE, Farquhar GD. 1992. Low conductances for CO2 diffusion from stomata to the sites of carboxylation in leaves of woody species. Plant, Cell & Environment 15: 873– 899. Long SP, Zhu X-G, Naidu SL, Ort DR. 2006. Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields? Plant, Cell & Environment 29: 315– 330. McAusland L, Vialet-Chabrand S, Davey P, Baker NR, Brendel O, Lawson T. 2016. Effects of kinetics of light-induced stomatal responses on photosynthesis and water-use efficiency. New Phytologist 211: 1209– 1220. Niinemets Ü, Flexas J, Peñuelas J. 2011. Evergreens favored by higher responsiveness to increased CO2. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 136– 142. Orr DJ, Alcântara A, Kapralov MV, Andralojc PJ, Carmo-Silva E, Parry MAJ. 2016. Surveying Rubisco diversity and temperature response to improve crop photosynthetic efficiency. Plant Physiology 172: 707– 717. Ort DR, Merchant SS, Alric J, Barkan A, Blankenship RE, Bock R, Croce R, Hanson MR, Hibberd JM, Long SP et al. 2015. Can photosynthesis be redesigned to sustainably meet global food and bioenergy demand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: 8529– 8536. Pearcy RW, Gross LJ, He D. 1997. An improved dynamic model of photosynthesis for estimation of carbon gain in sunfleck light regimes. Plant, Cell & Environment 20: 411– 424. Pinto F, Damm A, Schickling A, Panigada C, Cogliati S, Müller-Linow M, Balvora A, Rascher U. 2016. Sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from high-resolution imaging spectroscopy data to quantify spatio-temporal patterns of photosynthetic function in crop canopies. Plant, Cell & Environment 39: 1500– 1512. Rogers A, Medlyn BE, Dukes JS, Bonan G, von Caemmerer S, Dietze MC, Kattge J, Leakey ADB, Mercado LM, Niinemets Ü et al. 2016. A roadmap for improving the representation of photosynthesis in Earth system models. New Phytologist 213: 22– 42. Schlau-Cohen GS, Berry J. 2015. Photosynthetic fluorescence, from molecule to planet. Physics Today 68: 66. Schlueter U, Weber APM. 2016. The road to C4 photosynthesis: evolution of a complex trait via intermediary states. Plant and Cell Physiology 57: 881– 889. Schuler MJ, Mantegazza O, Weber APM. 2016. Engineering C4 photosynthesis into C3 chassis in the synthetic biology age. Plant Journal 87: 51– 65. Sharkey TD. 1985. Photosynthesis in intact leaves of C3 plants: physics, physiology and rate limitations. Botanical Review 51: 53– 105. Terashima I, Hanba YT, Tholen D, Niinemets Ü. 2011. Leaf functional anatomy in relation to photosynthesis. Plant Physiology 155: 108– 116. Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108: 20260– 20264. Tol C, Berry JA, Campbell PKE, Campbell P, Rascher U. 2014. Models of fluorescence and photosynthesis for interpreting measurements of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences 119: 2312– 2327. Ubierna N, Gandin A, Boyd RA, Cousins AB. 2016. Temperature response of mesophyll conductance in three C4 species calculated with two methods: 18O discrimination and in-vitro Vpmax. New Phytologist. doi: 10.1111/nph.14359. Wachter RM, Henderson JN. 2015. Photosynthesis: Rubisco rescue. Nature Plants 1: 14010. Walker BJ, VanLoocke A, Bernacchi CJ, Ort DR. 2016. The costs of photorespiration to food production now and in the future. Annual Review of Plant Biology 67: 107– 129. Whitney SM, Birch R, Kelso C, Beck JL, Kapralov MV. 2015. Improving recombinant Rubisco biogenesis, plant photosynthesis and growth by coexpressing its ancillary RAF1 chaperone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112: 3564– 3569. Xin C-P, Tholen D, Devloo V, Zhu X-G. 2015. The benefits of photorespiratory bypasses: how can they work? Plant Physiology 167: 574– 585. Zhu X-G, Long SP, Ort DR. 2008. What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass? Current Opinion in Biotechnology 19: 153– 159. Citing Literature Volume213, Issue1January 2017Pages 43-47 ReferencesRelatedInformation