The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO2 in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China

Tang, Jingchao; Sun, Baodi; Cheng, Ruimei; Shi, Zuomin; Luo, Da; Liu, Shirong; Centritto, Mauro

doi:10.3390/plants10102213

Open AccessArticle

The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China

¹

School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266525, China

²

Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Environment of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China

³

Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China

⁴

Institute for Sustainable Pant Protection, National Research Council of Italy, Strada delle Cacce 73, 10135 Torino, Italy

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Plants 2021, 10(10), 2213; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102213

Submission received: 27 August 2021 / Revised: 3 October 2021 / Accepted: 15 October 2021 / Published: 18 October 2021

(This article belongs to the Collection Forest Environment and Ecology)

Download

Browse Figures

Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Low light intensity can lead to a decrease in photosynthetic capacity. However, could N-fixing species with higher leaf N contents mitigate the effects of low light? Here, we exposed seedlings of Dalbergia odorifera and Erythrophleum fordii (N-fixing trees), and Castanopsis hystrix and Betula alnoides (non-N-fixing trees) to three irradiance treatments (100%, 40%, and 10% sunlight) to investigate the effects of low irradiance on leaf structure, leaf N allocation strategy, and photosynthetic physiological parameters in the seedlings. Low irradiance decreased the leaf mass per unit area, leaf N content per unit area (N_area), maximum carboxylation rate (V_c_max), maximum electron transport rate (J_max), light compensation point, and light saturation point, and increased the N allocation proportion of light-harvesting components in all species. The studied tree seedlings changed their leaf structures, leaf N allocation strategy, and photosynthetic physiological parameters to adapt to low-light environments. N-fixing plants had a higher photosynthesis rate, N_area, V_cmax, and J_max than non-N-fixing species under low irradiance and had a greater advantage in maintaining their photosynthetic rate under low-radiation conditions, such as under an understory canopy, in a forest gap, or when mixed with other species.

Keywords:

leaf nitrogen allocation; mesophyll conductance; photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency; low irradiance; N-fixing tree species

1. Introduction

Radiation is a source of energy for plants. Through photosynthesis, green plants use light to synthesize carbohydrates from water and CO₂, which are necessary for maintaining growth and development. The low radiation conditions in the understory canopy of subtropical forests affect the survival and growth of forest tree seedlings [1]. Low light intensity can lead to a decrease in photosynthetic capacity, forcing plants to change their leaf photosynthesis system and structure to increase their light-harvesting ability [2,3,4,5]. Under low irradiance, plants usually adjust their leaf nitrogen (N) allocation strategies, such as increasing the fraction of leaf nitrogen (N) allocated to light-harvesting (P_L) [5,6,7,8], and some plants may also change the fraction of leaf N allocated to Rubisco (P_R) and bioenergetics (P_B) to balance the light reaction with carbon assimilation and achieve optimal photosynthetic efficiency [8,9]. However, some plants do not adjust their P_R and P_B [10], which may be because some plants store many compounds containing N, such as free amino acids [11], inorganic N (NO₃⁻, NH₄⁺) [12], and some inactive Rubisco [12,13], and allocate these N sources to light-harvesting systems under low light levels.

Under low irradiance, the leaf thickness may decrease and leaf area may increase, resulting in a lower leaf mass per unit area (LMA) [1,4,14], which increases the area receiving light [8]. Low irradiance could also result in a reduction in the surface area of mesophyll cells per unit leaf area, as well as a smaller area of mesophyll cells through which CO₂ can diffuse into the chlorophyll [15,16]. These changes subsequently affect the mesophyll conductance to CO₂ (g_m) and, in turn, affect the CO₂ concentration in chloroplasts (C_c) [17,18]. Low irradiance decreased g_m [19,20] or did not significantly affect g_m in different species [21,22]. Therefore, changes in g_m in different species should be further studied.

The allocation of N in photosynthetic systems and g_m are common and important factors affecting photosynthetic N use efficiency (PNUE) [23,24], which is the ratio of the photosynthetic rate to the leaf N content [25,26] and reflects the N resources used for photosynthesis, an important leaf trait. Many authors have studied the PNUE of various plants under changing light intensities, and the changes in the PNUE of different plant species under different light intensities were inconsistent; some studies found that, under low irradiance, the PNUE increased [5,20,27], while others found that it decreased [28] or remained unchanged [7,29]. However, few studies have been conducted on whether low-irradiance treatment can affect the PNUE of N-fixing trees and the relevant internal control mechanisms of leaf N allocation and g_m. We suspect that N-fixing species with sufficient N in their leaves could increase their P_R, P_B, and P_L to increase the PNUE under low-irradiance treatment, and maintain photosynthetic capacity and growth better than non-N-fixing species under low-irradiance environments.

In this study, we exposed Dalbergia odorifera and Erythrophleum fordii (N-fixing trees), and Castanopsis hystrix and Betula alnoides (non-N-fixing trees) seedlings to three levels of irradiance (100%, 40%, and 10% sunlight irradiance) and estimated their photosynthesis, PNUE, leaf N allocation, and g_m values. These species are locally vital broad-leaved trees with high economic value, which are commonly used to change Pinus massoniana and Cunninghamia lanceolata pure forests into mixed broadleaf-conifer forests or mixed broad-leaved forests. This requires the selected species to be planted in forest gaps, mixed with other species, or directly on bare ground; therefore, their tolerance under low light conditions (e.g., in the understory canopy) will affect their survival and growth. Full light conditions of 10% and 40% are common in forest gaps as well as with mixed planting conditions, while 100% light conditions are typical for direct planting on bare land.

The aim of this study was to (1) determine the effects of low irradiance on leaf structure, leaf N allocation strategy, and photosynthetic physiological parameters (e.g., g_s, g_m, and photosynthetic rate) and (2) evaluate whether N-fixing plants are better able to maintain their photosynthetic rate under low-radiation conditions compared to non-fixing plants.

2. Results

N_area and N_mass in D. odorifera and E. fordii seedling leaves were significantly higher than those in C. hystrix and B. alnoides under each irradiance treatment (Table 1). There was a significant decrease in N_area and the LMA of all four species under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments when compared with the 100% treatment (Table 1). A_sat of E. fordii under the 40% irradiance treatment was significantly higher than that under the other treatments; however, A_sat of C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and A_sat of B. alnoides under the 10% irradiance treatment were significantly lower than that under the 100% treatment (Table 1). N_mass of E. fordii C. hystrix and B. alnoides was significantly higher under the 10% irradiance treatment than that under the 100% treatment (+25.6%, +33.8%, and +23.6%, respectively; Table 1). The PNUE_sat of D. odorifera under the 10% irradiance treatment, and of E. fordii under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were significantly higher than that under the 100% treatment; however, the PNUE_sat of C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments was significantly lower than that under the 100% treatment (Table 1).

Both g_s and g_m of C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and g_s and g_m of B. alnoides under the 10% irradiance treatment were significantly lower than those under the 100% treatment (Table 2). In contrast, g_s of D. odorifera under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were higher than that under the 100% treatment (+32.8% and +35.8, respectively), whereas g_m of D. odorifera under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments was lower than that under the 100% treatment (−27.0% and −21.9%, respectively). g_m of E. fordii under the 40% irradiance treatment was significantly higher than that of the other treatments (Table 2). In D. odorifera, C_i under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and C_c under the 10% irradiance treatment were higher than that under 100% irradiance, and in E. fordii, C_i under 10% irradiance treatment, and C_c under 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were higher than those under 100% irradiance (Table 2). Irradiance treatments did not significantly affect the CO₂ drawdown (C_i-C_c) in any of the four tree species studied (Table 2).

V_cmax and J_max of D. odorifera, E. fordii, and B. alnoides under the 10% irradiance treatments, and V_cmax and J_max of C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 3). In contrast, V_cmax of D. odorifera and V_cmax and J_max of E. fordii under the 40% irradiance treatment were higher than those under 100% irradiance (Table 3).

In D. odorifera, P_R, P_B, P_L, and P_P under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were higher than those under 100% irradiance, but P_Other under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 4). In E. fordii, P_R, P_L, and P_P under 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and P_B under 40% irradiance treatment were higher than those under 100% irradiance. However, P_CW and P_Other under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 4). In C. hystrix, P_L under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and P_CW under the 40% irradiance treatment were higher than those under 100% irradiance, but P_R, P_B, and P_Other under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 4). In B. alnoides, P_L under the 10% irradiance treatment, P_R and P_B under the 40% irradiance treatment, and P_P under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were higher than those under the 100% irradiance treatment, but P_CW under the 10% irradiance treatment was lower than that under 100% irradiance (−32.1%, Table 4).

The apparent quantum yield (AQY) and R_n of D. odorifera, C. hystrix, and B. alnoides were not significantly affected by low-irradiance treatment; however, the AQY of E. fordii under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were significantly higher than that under 100% irradiance, and R_n of E. fordii under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were significantly lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 5). The light compensation point (LCP) of D. odorifera and C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and E. fordii and B. alnoides under the 10% irradiance treatment were significantly lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 5). The light saturation point (LSP) of D. odorifera and E. fordii under the 10% irradiance treatment, and C. hystrix and B. alnoides under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were significantly lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 5).

A₁₀₀ and A₄₀₀ in D. odorifera and E. fordii seedling leaves were significantly higher than those in C. hystrix and B. alnoides under 10% irradiance treatment (Table 6). A₁₀₀, PNUE₁₀₀ and PNUE₄₀₀ of D. odorifera and E. fordii under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were significantly higher than that under the 100% treatment (Table 6). A₄₀₀ of E. fordii under the 40% irradiance treatment was significantly higher than that under the other treatments (Table 6). A₁₀₀, A₄₀₀ and PNUE₄₀₀ of C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments were significantly lower than that under the 100% treatment (Table 2). A₄₀₀ of B. alnoides was significantly lower than that under the 40% and 100% treatments, but PNUE₁₀₀ of B. alnoides was significantly higher than that under the 100% treatment (Table 6).

The PNUE_sat was significantly, linearly related to P_R, P_B, and P_P in all four tree species in all treatments (p < 0.001, Figure 1a,b,d). In contrast, the PNUE_sat of all four tree species was significantly positively related to P_L only under the 10% irradiance treatment (p < 0.001, Figure 1c). There was no significant positive correlation between PNUE_sat and g_m in these four species (Figure 2).

3. Discussion

Under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, plants consistently reduced their LMAs (Table 1), that is, they reduced their leaf thickness to improve the transmittance of light and increase the leaf area to increase the area receiving light [1,4,8,14]. Leaves may change their arrangements of mesophyll cells and chloroplasts to increase their light capture efficiency, which allows their light-harvesting capacity to be increased and sustain photosynthesis [3,4]. The N_mass of all four tree species included in this study was higher under the 10% irradiance treatment. Although the increase in N_mass in D. odorifera was not significant, it was significant in the other three species (Table 1). N is an important component of chlorophyll, and plants increase the concentration of N to increase chlorophyll synthesis under low irradiance [7,8,20]. As N_area = LMA × N_mass, the significant decrease in LMA led to a decrease in N_are_a under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, indicating that thinner leaves had a lower concentration of N per unit area [1,10,30]. We hypothesized that N-fixing trees could fix nitrogen from the air; therefore, the reduction in N_area under low light may be smaller than that of non-N-fixing tree species. However, our results indicate that the decrease in the proportion of N_area was not lower in N-fixing trees than that in non-N-fixing trees (D. odorifera: −55.70%, E. fordii: −22.39%, C. hystrix: −22.54%, and B. alnoides: −45.63%). The N fixation capacities of D. odorifera and E. fordii did not limit the reduction in N_area under low light treatment.

In this study, A_sat significantly reduced in two non-N-fixing tree species, C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and B. alnoides under the 10% irradiance treatment (Table 1). Reduced A_sat under low light treatment has been observed in many other studies [20,31], and many researchers have reported that C_c, V_cmax, and J_max are important factors affecting A_sat. CO₂ is a key material for photosynthesis [32], and V_cmax and J_max are key biochemical parameters of the photosynthetic capacity [33]. In this study, the C_c of C. hystrix and B. alnoides did not change significantly from the 10% to 100% irradiance treatments (Table 2), but the V_c_max and J_max of C. hystrix under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and V_c_max and J_max of B. alnoides under the 10% irradiance treatment were lower than those under 100% irradiance (Table 3), which were the main reasons for the reduction in A_sat in these two species (Table 1). Although V_c_max and J_max of two N-fixing tree species, D. odorifera and E. fordii, were reduced under 10% irradiance (Table 3), the C_c of these species was significantly increased under 10% irradiance (Table 2), which resulted in the absence of significant changes in A_sat (Table 1). The A_sat, V_c_max, and J_max of E. fordii were highest under 40% irradiance, suggesting that moderate shading may be more beneficial to its growth (Table 1 and Table 3).

g_m in D. odorifera, C. hystrix, and B. alnoides seedlings decreased under 10% irradiance, which was consistent with previous studies [19,20] (Table 2). g_m could be affected by leaf anatomical differences, such as cell wall thickness, surface area of mesophyll cells, number of mesophyll layers, and leaf stomata density [17,18]. Variations in LMA could be driven by several anatomical traits, such as the cell wall thickness and number of mesophyll layers [34], and changes in LMA always influence g_m [35]. If a lower LMA is the result of mesophyll cell wall thinning, it will increase g_m [36,37]; if it is the result of a lower number of mesophyll layers, it will decrease g_m [38]. In this study, the LMA of D. odorifera, C. hystrix, and B. alnoides decreased under the 10% irradiance treatment, indicating that low light may decrease the number of mesophyll layers in these tree seedlings.

There was no significant change or increase in A_sat, but N_area was significantly reduced in the two N-fixing tree species under 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, which caused an increase in the PNUE_sat in these trees. The PNUE_sat in C. hystrix decreased under 10% and 40% irradiance treatments (Table 1). The PNUE_sat of different tree species can respond differently to low light treatment, and may increase [5,20,27], decrease [28], or show no marked change [7,29]. This is related to the functional characteristics of different tree species. Many scholars have suggested that P_R and P_B are the main factors affecting PNUE_sat [39,40]. In this study, P_R and P_B were the main factors affecting the variation in the PNUE_sat under the 100% and 40% irradiance treatments; however, under the 10% irradiance treatment, the effects of P_L on PNUE_sat became significant, and the effects of P_R and P_B on PNUE_sat decreased (Figure 1). The ability to harvest light under low light treatment is a key factor limiting photosynthesis, and the importance of carboxylation and electron transport capacity decreases under such treatment, but persists [8,31]. We speculated that changes in g_m may affect PNUE_sat, based on the role of N in mesophyll conductance [41,42]. However, our results indicated that the effect of g_m on PNUE_sat was not significant under varying light treatments in all tree species (Figure 2).

As these species are commonly used to plant in gaps or mixed with other species, their tolerance to low light conditions will affect the growth effect after planting. All four species decreased the LMA to increase the area receiving light (Table 1) [1,4,8,14], increased P_L to increase their light-harvesting capacity and sustain photosynthesis (Table 4) [3,4], and decreased the LCP and LSP to increase the ability to use low light (Table 5) under low light conditions. Meanwhile, N-fixing plants exhibited some other adaptations to low light conditions, such as increased A₁₀₀, PNUE₁₀₀ and PNUE₄₀₀ under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments (Table 6). N-fixing plants also had higher A₁₀₀, A₄₀₀, N_area, V_cmax and J_max than non-N-fixing species under the 10% irradiance treatment (Table 1, Table 3 and Table 6). Overall, these two N-fixing plant seedlings had higher photosynthetic rates, photosynthetic ability and higher adjustment ability of photosynthetic N use under low light conditions. AQY refers to the ability to use low light [43]. E. Fordii exhibited improved AQY under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments, and also reduced R_n under the 10% and 40% irradiance treatments to reduce respiratory expenditure (Table 5). In conclusion, these results suggest that the adaptability of these two N-fixing species to low light environments is better than that of non-N-fixing species.

We previously studied the interspecific differences between D. odorifera and E. fordii (N-fixing trees), and C. hystrix and B. alnoides (non-N-fixing trees) [44], and how they are affected by soil N deficiencies [45]. The data obtained under high light intensity in this manuscript are the same as those used by Tang et al. [44] and the high nitrogen condition reported by Tang et al. [45], which were used as the “Control group.” In [44], N-fixing trees had higher N_area and N_mass, but lower P_R, P_B, and PNUE than non-N-fixing trees. In [45], soil N deficiency had less influence on the leaf N concentration and photosynthetic ability in the two N-fixing trees. Combined with the results of this study, we consider that nitrogen-fixing plants are suitable species for afforestation, and could be independently planted in poor soil, mixed with non-N-fixing species, or planted in gaps.

The P_L of all four species increased to improve their light-trapping ability under low irradiance treatments (Table 4), which was consistent with previous studies [31,46]. However, different tree species employ different strategies to increase their P_L: D. odorifera seedling leaves decreased P_Other to increase P_R, P_B, and P_L; E. fordii seedling leaves decreased P_Other and P_CW to increase P_L and P_R; C. hystrix seedling leaves decreased P_R, P_B, and P_Other to increase P_L; and B. alnoides seedling leaves decreased P_CW to increase P_L under 10% irradiance (Table 4). Many studies have also observed changes in N allocation under low light treatment [4,5,8,9,47]. These different strategies are related to the ecological characteristics of each tree species, but the goal is the same (reducing some other N components and increase light-harvesting N components under low light treatment). However, why these tree species reduce the corresponding N components requires further study.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area and Plant Material

This study was conducted at the Experimental Center of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry (22°719″–22°722″ N, 106°4440″–106°4444″ E), located in Guangxi Pingxiang, China. This area experiences a subtropical monsoon climate, with long summers and abundant rainfall. The average annual temperature of Pingxiang is 19.5–21.41 °C. Rainfall mainly occurs from April to September, and the annual precipitation is approximately 1400 mm [48,49].

Seedlings of D. odorifera, E. fordii, C. hystrix, and B. alnoides were selected from nurseries in March 2014, with 90 seedlings per species. The seedlings were healthy and similar in size (approximately 20-cm tall), and were transplanted into pots filled with 5.4 L of washed river sand outdoors. From April to June 2014, three levels of irradiance, that is, 100%, 40%, and 10% of sunlight irradiance, were applied using neutral black polypropylene frames with a covering film of black polyolefin resin fine mesh. The irradiation treatment lasted for three months. Illumination was measured using an MT-4617LED-C monochromator spectroradiometer (Pro’s Kit Ltd., Shanghai, China); the average sunny midday illumination in the 100%, 40%, and 10% irradiance treatments were 78,000, 31,000, and 7800 lux, respectively.

There were three different randomized blocks per irradiance treatment, with each block consisting of 10 seedlings per species (30 seedlings per species per irradiance treatment), which were frequently moved within each block in order to avoid their position affecting the results. Each seedling was watered every day to pot water capacity and supplied with Hyponex’s nutrient solution (0.125 g N and 0.11 g P) once a week at free-access rate.

4.2. Determination of Gas Exchange and Fluorescence Parameters

The experiment was conducted between 09:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on sunny days, on newly fully expanded leaves of seven seedlings per treatment from July to August 2014, lasting for two months. An LI-6400-40 portable photosynthesis system (LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) was used to determine the photosynthetic light and CO₂ response curves. The photosynthetic response to the photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD, µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹) was determined under a leaf chamber CO₂ concentration of 380 μmol mol⁻¹, and the net photosynthetic rate (A_n, μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹), CO₂ concentration at sub-stomatal cavities (C_i, μmol mol⁻¹), and stomatal conductance (g_s, mol CO₂·m⁻²·s⁻¹) were measured at photon flux densities of 1500, 1200, 1000, 800, 600, 400, 200, 150, 100, 80, 50, 30, 20, 10, and 0 μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (see Figure S1). The PPFD-saturated net CO₂ assimilation rate (A_sat, μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹), net CO₂ assimilation rate at PPFD of 100 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (A₁₀₀), net CO₂ assimilation rate at PPFD of 400 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (A₄₀₀), dark respiration (R_n, μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹), LSP (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹), and LCP (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹) were then measured from the light response curves. (100 and 400 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ were in the range of the growth irradiance in the 10% and 40% light conditions, respectively). The AQY (mol·mol⁻¹) was measured as the initial slope of the light response curves (PPFD ≤ 30 μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹).

The CO₂ response curve was determined under saturated PPFD, and C_i and g_s were measured under leaf chamber CO₂ concentrations of 380, 200, 150, 100, 80, 50, 380, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1500, 1800, and 2000 μmol·mol⁻¹ (see Figure S2). The light- and CO₂-saturated net CO₂ assimilation rate (A_max, μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹) was then measured from the CO₂ response curve. The fluorescence yield (ΔF/F_m) was measured under leaf chamber CO₂ concentrations of 380 μmol·mol⁻¹ and saturated PPFD. Meanwhile, the relative humidity of the leaf chamber was maintained at 50 ± 5%, and the leaf temperature was maintained at 25 ± 2 °C.

4.3. Determination of Mesophyll Conductance, V_cmax, and J_max

To better measure the mesophyll conductance to CO₂ (g_m, molCO₂ m⁻²·s⁻¹), three methods were used: the variable J [50], exhaustive dual optimization [51], and A_n–C_i curve fitting methods [52,53]. The CO₂ concentration in chloroplasts (C_c, μmol·mol⁻¹) was then calculated as:

C_{C} = C_{i} - \frac{A_{sat}}{g_{m}}

(1)

The C_c and g_m values are listed in Table S1. The mean value of C_c calculated by the three methods was used to obtain the A_n_–C_c curves, which were then used to calculate the maximum carboxylation rate (V_cmax, μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹) and electron transport rates (J_max, μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹) [54].

4.4. Determination of Additional Leaf Traits

After the determination of the gas exchange and fluorescence parameters, 20–30 leaves from each seedling used for gas exchange measurements were selected, which were healthy and similar in size. Ten to 15 of these leaves were selected, and the area of each leaf was measured using a scanner. Each leaf was then oven-dried at 80 °C for 48 h until the weight became constant, and the dry weight of each leaf was recorded. The LMA (g·m⁻²) was calculated as the ratio of the dry weight to leaf area.

Subsequently, dries leaves were ground into powder and the leaf N per unit mass (N_mass, mg·g⁻¹) was determined following the micro-Kjeldahl method (UDK-139, Milano, Italy). The leaf N per unit area (N_area g·m⁻²) values were then determined as N_mass × LMA/1000, while the PNUE (μmol·mol⁻¹·s⁻¹) was calculated as:

PNUE = \frac{A_{n}}{N_{area}} \times 14

(2)

where PNUE_sat was calculated by A_sat and N_area, PNUE₁₀₀ was calculated by A₁₀₀ and N_area and PNUE₄₀₀ was calculated by A₄₀₀ and N_area, respectively.

The remaining 10–15 leaves from each seedling were frozen with liquid nitrogen; 0.2-g of the leaves were weighed and cut into small pieces, and then added to a volumetric flask along with 95% (v/v) alcohol to a volume of 25 mL. The flasks were then stored under darkness for 24 h. The chlorophyll content (C_Chl, mmol·g⁻¹) was then determined by spectrophotometry. The cell wall N concentrations (Q_CWmass mg·g⁻¹) were measured following the method proposed by Onoda et al. [55], and the fraction of leaf N allocated to cell walls (P_CW g·g⁻¹) was determined as Q_CWmass/N_mass.

4.5. Calculation of N Allocation in the Photosynthetic Apparatus

The N allocation proportions in Rubisco (P_R, g·g⁻¹), bioenergetics (P_B, g·g⁻¹), and light-harvesting components (P_L, g·g⁻¹) were calculated according to Niinemets and Tenhunen [56]:

P_{R} = \frac{V_{cmax}}{6.25 \times V_{cr} \times LMA \times N_{mass}}

(3)

P_{B} = \frac{J_{\max}}{8.06 \times J_{mc} \times LMA \times N_{mass}}

(4)

P_{L} = \frac{C_{Chl}}{C_{B} \times N_{mass}}

(5)

where C_Chl is the chlorophyll concentration (mmol·g⁻¹), V_cr is the specific activity of Rubisco (μmol CO₂ g⁻¹ Rubisco s⁻¹), J_mc is the potential rate of photosynthetic electron transport (μmol electrons μmol⁻¹ Cyt f s⁻¹), and C_B is the ratio of leaf chlorophyll to leaf nitrogen during light-harvesting (mmol Chl (g·N)⁻¹). V_cr, J_mc, and C_B were calculated according to Niinemets and Tenhunen [56]:

V_{cr} (J_{mc}) = \frac{e^{(c - \frac{Δ H_{a}}{R \times T_{k}})}}{1 + e^{\frac{Δ S \times T_{k} - Δ H_{d}}{R \times T_{k}}}}

(6)

[C_{B}] = 1.94 + \frac{12.6}{[LMA]}

(7)

where R is the gas constant (8.314 J·K⁻¹·mol⁻¹), T_k is the leaf temperature (K), ΔH_a is the activation energy, ΔH_d is the deactivation energy, ΔS is the entropy term, and c is the scaling constant. [LMA] and [C_B] are the values of LMA and C_B, respectively. The values of ΔH_a, ΔH_d, ΔS, and c were 74,000 J·mol⁻¹, 203,000 J·mol⁻¹, 645 J·K⁻¹·mol⁻¹, and 32.9 when calculating V_cr, and 24,100 J·mol⁻¹, 564,150 J·mol⁻¹, 1810 J·K⁻¹·mol⁻¹, and14.77 when calculating J_mc [56].

The leaf N allocated to the photosynthetic apparatus (P_P, g·g⁻¹) was calculated as P_R + P_B + P_L while the leaf N allocated to the other parts (P_Other, g·g⁻¹) was calculated as 1–P_P–P_CW. We also calculated the quantities of leaf N per unit area and the mass of N in the Rubisco, bioenergetics, light-harvesting components, photosynthetic apparatus, cell wall, and other parts (Tables S2 and S3).

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The differences between the four seedling species and different irradiance treatments were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and a post-hoc test (Tukey’s test) was conducted to determine if the differences were significant. The F-ratio in the tables is the ratio of the mean squares between groups and within groups, and p is the confidence interval of F. The significance of the linear relationships between each pair of variables was tested by Pearson’s correlation (two-tailed). All analyses were conducted using Statistical Product and Service Solutions 17.0 (version 17.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

5. Conclusions

In our study, we concluded that: (1) low irradiance decreased the LMA, N_area, V_c_max, J_max, LCP, and LSP, increased the P_L in all species; increased A₁₀₀, PNUE₁₀₀ and PNUE₄₀₀ in N-fixing trees and decreased A_sat and g_s in non-N-fixing trees. These tree seedlings changed their leaf structure, leaf N allocation strategy, and photosynthetic physiological parameters to adapt to low light environments. (2) N-fixing plants had higher A₁₀₀, A₄₀₀, N_area, V_cmax and J_max than non-N-fixing species under low-irradiance treatment, and were more advantageous than non-N-fixing plants in maintaining the photosynthetic rate under low-radiation conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants10102213/s1, Figure S1: A_n-PPFD curves in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Figure S2: A_n–C_i curves in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Table S1: Mesophyll conductance (g_m), and CO₂ concentration at carboxylation site (C_c) calculated by three methods in four species seedling leaves under different irradiance treatments. Table S2: Quantity of leaf N per area allocated to Rubisco (Q_R_area), bioenergetics (Q_Barea), light-harvesting components (Q_Larea), photosynthetic apparatus (Q_Parea), cell wall (Q_CWarea), and other parts (Q_Other-area) in four species seedling leaves under different irradiance treatments. Table S3: Quantity of leaf N per mass allocated to Rubisco (Q_R_mass), bioenergetics (Q_Bmass), light-harvesting components (Q_Lmass), photosynthetic apparatus (Q_Pmass), cell wall (Q_CWmass), and other parts (Q_Other-mass) in four species seedling leaves under different irradiance treatments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.S. and J.T.; methodology, J.T.; software, B.S.; validation, J.T., R.C. and Z.S.; formal analysis, J.T.; investigation, J.T. and D.L.; resources, R.C. and Z.S.; data curation, J.T. and B.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.T.; writing—review and editing, J.T., Z.S. and M.C.; visualization, J.T.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, J.T. and Z.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Key Research and Development Program, grant number 2016YFC0502104-02, the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, grant number ZR2020QC027, and the Provincial key R&D Program of Shandong, grant number 2019GGX101013.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within this article and Supplementary Figures S1 and S2, Tables S1–S3.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Experimental Center of Tropical Forestry at the Chinese Academy of Forestry for providing the experimental apparatus and assisting with the measurements. We would like to thank Editage. Available online: https://www.editage.cn/ (accessed on 18 October 2021) for English language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Tang, X.; Liu, G.; Jiang, J.; Lei, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Liu, X. Effects of growth irradiance on photosynthesis and photorespiration of Phoebe bournei leaves. Funct. Plant Biol. 2020, 47, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Warren, C.R.; Adams, M. Distribution of N, Rubisco and photosynthesis in Pinus pinaster and acclimation to light. Plant Cell Environ. 2001, 24, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coble, A.P.; Cavaleri, M.A. Vertical leaf mass per area gradient of mature sugar maple reflects both height-driven increases in vascular tissue and light-driven increases in palisade layer thickness. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 1337–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coble, A.P.; Fogel, M.L.; Parker, G.G. Canopy gradients in leaf functional traits for species that differ in growth strategies and shade tolerance. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 1415–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bachofen, C.; D’Odorico, P.; Buchmann, N. Light and VPD gradients drive foliar nitrogen partitioning and photosynthesis in the canopy of European beech and silver fir. Oecologia 2020, 192, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Evans, J.R.; Poorter, H. Photosynthetic acclimation of plants to growth irradiance: The relative importance of specific leaf area and nitrogen partitioning in maximizing carbon gain. Plant Cell Environ. 2001, 24, 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Trouwborst, G.; Hogewoning, S.; Harbinson, J.; Van Ieperen, W. Photosynthetic acclimation in relation to nitrogen allocation in cucumber leaves in response to changes in irradiance. Physiol. Plant. 2011, 142, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chen, J.-W.; Kuang, S.-B.; Long, G.-Q.; Meng, Z.-G.; Li, L.-G.; Chen, Z.-J.; Zhang, G.-H.; Yang, S.-C. Steady-state and dynamic photosynthetic performance and nitrogen partitioning in the shade-demanding plant Panax notoginseng under different levels of growth irradiance. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2014, 36, 2409–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Osada, N.; Onoda, Y.; Hikosaka, K. Effects of atmospheric CO₂ concentration, irradiance, and soil nitrogen availability on leaf photosynthetic traits of Polygonum sachalinense around natural CO₂ springs in northern Japan. Oecologia 2010, 164, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Delagrange, S. Light- and seasonal-induced plasticity in leaf morphology, N partitioning and photosynthetic capacity of two temperate deciduous species. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2011, 70, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ruan, J.; Haerdter, R.; Gerendás, J. Impact of nitrogen supply on carbon/nitrogen allocation: A case study on amino acids and catechins in green tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] plants. Plant Biol. 2010, 12, 724–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Funk, J.L.; Glenwinkel, L.A.; Sack, L. Differential Allocation to Photosynthetic and Non-Photosynthetic Nitrogen Fractions among Native and Invasive Species. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Stitt, M.; Schulze, D. Does Rubisco control the rate of photosynthesis and plant growth? An exercise in molecular ecophysiology. Plant Cell Environ. 1994, 17, 465–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Annighöfer, P.; Petritan, A.M.; Petritan, I.C.; Ammer, C. Disentangling juvenile growth strategies of three shade-tolerant temperate forest tree species responding to a light gradient. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 391, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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]
Terashima, I.; Hanba, Y.T.; Tazoe, Y.; Vyas, P.; Yano, S. Irradiance and phenotype: Comparative eco-development of sun and shade leaves in relation to photosynthetic CO₂ diffusion. J. Exp. Bot. 2005, 57, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Evans, J.R.; Kaldenhoff, R.; Genty, B.; Terashima, I. Resistances along the CO₂ diffusion pathway inside leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2235–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Niinemets, Ü.; Díaz-Espejo, A.; Flexas, J.; Galmés, J.; Warren, C.R. Role of mesophyll diffusion conductance in constraining potential photosynthetic productivity in the field. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2249–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Fini, A.; Loreto, F.; Tattini, M.; Giordano, C.; Ferrini, F.; Brunetti, C.; Centritto, M. Mesophyll conductance plays a central role in leaf functioning of Oleaceae species exposed to contrasting sunlight irradiance. Physiol. Plant. 2016, 157, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gu, J.; Zhou, Z.; Li, Z.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H. Rice (Oryza sativa L.) with reduced chlorophyll content exhibit higher photosynthetic rate and efficiency, improved canopy light distribution, and greater yields than normally pigmented plants. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 200, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rocha, J.S.; Calzavara, A.K.; Bianchini, E.; Pimenta, J.A.; Stolf-Moreira, R.; Oliveira, H.C. Nitrogen supplementation improves the high-light acclimation of Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. seedlings. Trees 2018, 33, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yang, Y.-J.; Hu, H.; Huang, W. The Light Dependence of Mesophyll Conductance and Relative Limitations on Photosynthesis in Evergreen Sclerophyllous Rhododendron Species. Plants 2020, 9, 1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hikosaka, K. Mechanisms underlying interspecific variation in photosynthetic capacity across wild plant species. Plant Biotechnol. 2010, 27, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hou, W.; Tränkner, M.; Lu, J.; Yan, J.; Huang, S.; Ren, T.; Cong, R.; Li, X. Interactive effects of nitrogen and potassium on photosynthesis and photosynthetic nitrogen allocation of rice leaves. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wright, I.J.; Reich, P.B.; Westoby, M.; Ackerly, D.D.; Baruch, Z.; Bongers, F.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Chapin, T.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Diemer, M.; et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 2004, 428, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yin, L.; Xu, H.; Dong, S.; Chu, J.; Dai, X.; He, M. Optimised nitrogen allocation favours improvement in canopy photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency: Evidence from late-sown winter wheat. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 159, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, S.; Cai, Y.F.; Li, Z.L.; Li, S.F. Effect of different light intensities on photosynthetic characteristics of rhododendron ‘Furnivall’s Daughter’. Acta Bot. Boreali-Occident. Sin. 2012, 32, 2095–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y.-J.; Feng, Y.-L. The relationships between photosynthetic capacity and lamina mass per unit area, nitrogen content and partitioning in seedlings of two ficus species grown under different irradiance. J. Plant Physiol. Mol. Boil. 2004, 30, 269–276. [Google Scholar]
Wyka, T.P.; Oleksyn, J.; Żytkowiak, R.; Karolewski, P.; Jagodzinski, A.; Reich, P. Responses of leaf structure and photosynthetic properties to intra-canopy light gradients: A common garden test with four broadleaf deciduous angiosperm and seven evergreen conifer tree species. Oecologia 2012, 170, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Catoni, R.; Gratani, L.; Sartori, F.; Varone, L.; Granata, M.U. Carbon gain optimization in five broadleaf deciduous trees in response to light variation within the crown: Correlations among morphological, anatomical and physiological leaf traits. Acta Bot. Croat. 2015, 74, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Townsend, A.J.; Retkute, R.; Chinnathambi, K.; Randall, J.W.P.; Foulkes, J.; Carmo-Silva, E.; Murchie, E.H. Suboptimal Acclimation of Photosynthesis to Light in Wheat Canopies. Plant Physiol. 2018, 176, 1233–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Niinemets, Ü.; Flexas, J.; Penuelas, J. Evergreens favored by higher responsiveness to increased CO₂. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bahar, N.H.A.; Ishida, F.Y.; Weerasinghe, L.K.; Guerrieri, R.; O’Sullivan, O.S.; Bloomfield, K.J.; Asner, G.P.; Martin, R.E.; Lloyd, J.; Malhi, Y.; et al. Leaf-level photosynthetic capacity in lowland Amazonian and high-elevation Andean tropical moist forests of Peru. New Phytol. 2017, 214, 1002–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Peguero-Pina, J.J.; Sisó, S.; Flexas, J.; Galmés, J.; Niinemets, Ü.; Sancho-Knapik, D.; Gil-Pelegrín, E. Coordinated modifications in mesophyll conductance, photosynthetic potentials and leaf nitrogen contribute to explain the large variation in foliage net assimilation rates across Quercus ilex provenances. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 1084–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cousins, A.B.; Mullendore, D.L.; Sonawane, B.V. Recent developments in mesophyll conductance in C3, C4, and crassulacean acid metabolism plants. Plant J. 2020, 101, 816–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Warren, C.R. Stand aside stomata, another actor deserves centre stage: The forgotten role of the internal conductance to CO₂ transfer. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 59, 1475–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Scafaro, A.P.; VON Caemmerer, S.; Evans, J.R.; Atwell, B.J. Temperature response of mesophyll conductance in cultivated and wild Oryza species with contrasting mesophyll cell wall thickness. Plant Cell Environ. 2011, 34, 1999–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Niinemets, U.; Cescatti, A.; Rodeghiero, M.; Tosens, T. Leaf internal diffusion conductance limits photosynthesis more strongly in older leaves of Mediterranean evergreen broad-leaved species. Plant Cell Environ. 2005, 28, 1552–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Qing, H.; Cai, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Yao, Y.; An, S. Leaf nitrogen partition between photosynthesis and structural defense in invasive and native tall form Spartina alterniflora populations: Effects of nitrogen treatments. Biol. Invasions 2012, 14, 2039–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chen, L.; Dong, T.; Duan, B. Sex-specific carbon and nitrogen partitioning under N deposition in Populus cathayana. Trees 2014, 28, 793–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Flexas, J.; Barbour, M.M.; Brendel, O.; Cabrera, H.M.; Carriquí, M.; Diaz-Espejo, A.; Douthe, C.; Dreyer, E.; Ferrio, J.P.; Gago, J.; et al. Mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO₂: An unappreciated central player in photosynthesis. Plant Sci. 2012, 193–194, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buckley, T.N.; Warren, C.R. The role of mesophyll conductance in the economics of nitrogen and water use in photosynthesis. Photosynth. Res. 2014, 119, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Olsson, T.; Leverenz, J.W. Non-uniform stomatal closure and the apparent convexity of the photosynthetic photon flux density response curve. Plant Cell Environ. 1994, 17, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tang, J.; Sun, B.; Cheng, R.; Shi, Z.; Luo, D.; Liu, S.; Centritto, M. Seedling leaves allocate lower fractions of nitrogen to photosynthetic apparatus in nitrogen fixing trees than in non-nitrogen fixing trees in subtropical China. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0208971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Tang, J.; Sun, B.; Cheng, R.; Shi, Z.; Luo, D.; Liu, S.; Centritto, M. Effects of soil nitrogen (N) deficiency on photosynthetic N-use efficiency in N-fixing and non-N-fixing tree seedlings in subtropical China. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 4604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Fotis, A.T.; Curtis, P.S. Effects of structural complexity on within-canopy light environments and leaf traits in a northern mixed deciduous forest. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 1426–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Hikosaka, K.; Hanba, Y.T.; Hirose, T.; Terashima, I. Photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency in leaves of woody and herbaceous species. Funct. Ecol. 1998, 12, 896–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, W.-X.; Shi, Z.-M.; Luo, D.; Liu, S.-R.; Lu, L.-H. Characteristics of soil microbial biomass and community composition in three types of plantations in southern subtropical area of China. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 24, 1784–1792. [Google Scholar]
Tang, J.C.; Shi, Z.M.; Luo, D.; Liu, S.R. Photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency of Manglietia glauca seedling leaves under different shading levels. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 7493–7502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Harley, P.C.; Loreto, F.; Di Marco, G.; Sharkey, T. Theoretical Considerations when Estimating the Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ Flux by Analysis of the Response of Photosynthesis to CO₂. Plant Physiol. 1992, 98, 1429–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Gu, L.; Pallardy, S.G.; Tu, K.; Law, B.E.; Wullschleger, S.D. Reliable estimation of biochemical parameters from C3 leaf photosynthesis-intercellular carbon dioxide response curves. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 1852–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ethier, G.J.; Livingston, N.J. On the need to incorporate sensitivity to CO₂ transfer conductance into the Farquhar-von Caemmerer-Berry leaf photosynthesis model. Plant Cell Environ. 2004, 27, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sharkey, T.D.; Bernacchi, C.J.; Farquhar, G.D.; Singsaas, E.L. Fitting photosynthetic carbon dioxide response curves for C3leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 1035–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Farquhar, G.D.; Von Caemmerer, S.; Berry, J.A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO₂ assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 1980, 149, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Onoda, Y.; Hikosaka, K.; Hirose, T. Allocation of nitrogen to cell walls decreases photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency. Funct. Ecol. 2004, 18, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Niinemets, U.; Tenhunen, J.D. A model separating leaf structural and physiological effects on carbon gain along light gradients for the shade-tolerant species Acer saccharum. Plant Cell Environ. 1997, 20, 845–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Relationship between PPFD-saturated photosynthetic N use efficiency (PNUE_sat) and (a) N allocation proportion of Rubisco (P_R), (b) bioenergetics (P_B), (c) light-harvesting components (P_L) and (d) photosynthetic system (P_P) in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. The determination coefficient (R²) and p-value are shown.

Figure 2. Relationship between PPFD-saturated photosynthetic N use efficiency (PNUE_sat) and mesophyll conductance (g_m) in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments.

Table 1. PPFD-saturated net CO₂ assimilation rate (A_sat); leaf mass per unit area (LMA); leaf nitrogen (N) content per unit of leaf area (N_area); leaf N concentration (N_mass) and PPFD-saturated photosynthetic N use efficiency (PNUE_sat) in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Data are means of seven plants per treatment ±SE. Lower case letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among the irradiance treatments, whereas capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among species under same irradiance treatment. F-ratios with statistically significant values denoted by * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 among irradiance treatment.

Tree Species	Irradiance Treatment	A_sat (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	N_area (g·m⁻²)	N_mass (mg·g⁻¹)	LMA (g·m⁻²)	PNUE_sat (μmol·mol⁻¹·s⁻¹)
Dalbergia odorifera	100%	8.04 ± 0.46 ^aA	2.19 ± 0.13 ^aA	31.7 ± 0.76 ^aA	69.0 ± 3.90 ^aB	52.6 ± 3.78 ^bB
	40%	8.30 ± 0.76 ^aA	1.62 ± 0.04 ^bA	31.2± 0.65 ^aA	51.8 ± 0.65 ^bB	72.3 ± 7.03 ^bB
	10%	6.88 ± 0.30 ^aA	0.97 ± 0.04 ^cB	33.0 ± 1.11 ^aA	29.3 ± 0.67 ^cC	101.0 ± 7.12 ^aA
	F	1.967	54.700 ***	1.196	73.752 ***	15.533 ***
Erythrophleum fordii	100%	6.60 ± 0.50 ^bB	2.01 ± 0.12 ^aA	28.1 ± 1.49 ^bB	71.4 ± 0.89 ^aB	45.9 ± 2.24 ^cB
	40%	9.34 ± 0.49 ^aA	1.75 ± 0.03 ^bA	33.0 ± 0.46 ^bA	53.1 ± 0.99 ^bB	75.0 ± 4.56 ^aB
	10%	6.87 ± 0.50 ^bA	1.56 ± 0.04 ^bA	35.3 ± 0.88 ^aA	44.3 ± 1.47 ^cB	61.6 ± 3.72 ^bB
	F	9.042 **	9.223 **	12.658 ***	145.227 ***	15.877 ***
Castanopsis hystrix	100%	8.16 ± 0.18 ^aA	1.02 ± 0.06 ^aB	10.2 ± 1.80 ^bD	100.1 ± 2.60 ^aA	112.0 ± 4.62 ^aA
	40%	4.57 ± 0.23 ^bB	0.75 ± 0.05 ^bB	9.6 ± 0.50 ^bC	78.8 ± 1.11 ^bA	87.0± 7.26 ^bB
	10%	4.18 ± 0.25 ^bB	0.79 ± 0.03 ^bC	13.7 ± 0.49 ^aC	57.9 ± 1.29 ^cA	74.4 ± 4.59 ^bB
	F	95.630 ***	20.060 ***	28.220 ***	138.877 ***	12.868 ***
Betula alnoides	100%	8.55 ± 0.60 ^aA	1.03 ± 0.09 ^aB	15.4 ± 1.04 ^bC	67.6 ± 5.45 ^aB	120.5 ± 5.18 ^abA
	40%	7.42 ± 0.30 ^aA	0.75 ± 0.04 ^bB	15.4 ± 0.45 ^bB	49.1 ± 3.36 ^bB	140.3 ± 8.02 ^aA
	10%	4.26 ± 0.52 ^bB	0.56 ± 0.04 ^bD	19.0 ± 0.62 ^aB	29.6 ± 2.14 ^cC	105.3 ± 8.33 ^bA
	F	20.458 ***	13.371 ***	7.790 **	23.833 ***	3.815 *

Table 2. Stomatal conductance (g_s), mesophyll conductance (g_m), intercellular CO₂ concentration (C_i), CO₂ concentration at carboxylation site (C_c) and CO₂ drawdown from the intercellular concentration to the carboxylation site concentration (C_i-C_c) measured in PPFD-saturated conditions in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Data are means of seven plants per treatment ±SE. Lower case letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among the irradiance treatments, whereas capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among species under same irradiance treatment. F-ratios with statistically significant values denoted by * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 among irradiance treatment.

Tree Species	Irradiance Treatment	g_s (molCO₂·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	g_m (molCO₂·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	C_i (μmol·mol⁻¹)	C_c (μmol·mol⁻¹)	C_i-C_c (μmol·mol⁻¹)
Dalbergia odorifera	100%	0.067 ± 0.004 ^bBC	0.137 ± 0.010 ^aA	251.5 ± 6.44 ^bBC	190.8 ± 6.92 ^bB	60.8 ± 2.21 ^aC
	40%	0.091 ± 0.009 ^aA	0.107 ± 0.005 ^bA	288.5 ± 3.93 ^aA	210.0 ± 8.82 ^bA	78.6 ± 7.50 ^aAB
	10%	0.089 ± 0.003 ^aA	0.100 ± 0.007 ^bA	302.6 ± 1.94 ^aA	231.3 ± 6.20 ^aA	71.2 ± 5.27 ^aB
	F	6.562 **	6.823 **	34.333 ***	7.536 **	2.698
Erythrophleum fordii	100%	0.046 ± 0.002 ^bC	0.066 ± 0.007 ^bC	235.6 ± 6.19 ^bC	132.6 ± 6.90 ^bD	103.0 ± 4.83 ^aA
	40%	0.075 ± 0.005 ^aA	0.096 ± 0.004 ^aA	254.1 ± 3.81 ^abB	156.8 ± 4.09 ^aB	97.3 ± 2.37 ^aA
	10%	0.060 ± 0.005 ^abB	0.074 ± 0.004 ^bB	264.4 ± 4.18 ^aB	171.7 ± 4.45 ^aB	92.7 ± 1.56 ^aA
	F	11.744 **	9.789 **	7.982 **	13.855 ***	2.553
Castanopsis hystrix	100%	0.074 ± 0.004 ^aB	0.099 ± 0.006 ^aB	256.8 ± 5.24 ^bB	168.0 ± 6.04 ^bC	88.8 ± 6.26 ^aB
	40%	0.039 ± 0.004 ^bB	0.053 ± 0.006 ^bB	280.1 ± 3.48 ^aA	196.4 ± 5.84 ^aA	83.7 ± 4.14 ^aAB
	10%	0.036 ± 0.001 ^bC	0.053 ± 0.005 ^bB	268.0 ± 5.65 ^abB	186.5 ± 6.27 ^abB	81.5 ± 5.03 ^aAB
	F	38.06 ***	22.353 ***	5.711 *	5.691 *	0.511
Betula alnoides	100%	0.100 ± 0.013 ^aA	0.134 ± 0.012 ^aA	292.9 ± 5.94 ^aA	226.4 ± 9.57 ^aA	66.5 ± 4.64 ^aC
	40%	0.095 ± 0.011 ^aA	0.104 ± 0.009 ^aA	297.1 ± 7.04 ^aA	222.9 ± 12.19 ^aA	74.2 ± 5.69 ^aB
	10%	0.063 ± 0.005 ^bB	0.056 ± 0.009 ^bB	312.3 ± 4.73 ^aA	232.1 ± 9.07 ^aA	80.3 ± 6.14 ^aAB
	F	4.195 *	16.261 ***	2.93	0.198	1.568

Table 3. Maximum carboxylation rate (V_cmax) and maximum electron transport rate (J_max) measured in PPFD-saturated conditions in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments obtained by fitting the Farquhar et al. (1980) model of leaf photosynthesis to the individual A_n-C_c response curves. Data are means of seven plants per treatment ±SE. Lower case letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among the irradiance treatments, whereas capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among species under same irradiance treatment. F-ratios with statistically significant values denoted by * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 among irradiance treatment.

Tree Species	Irradiance Treatment	V_cmax (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	J_max (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)
Dalbergia odorifera	100%	78.1 ± 4.59 ^bB	100.7 ± 5.80 ^aBC
	40%	95.2 ± 8.01 ^aB	118.5 ± 7.39 ^aB
	10%	68.6 ± 3.96 ^cB	79.1 ± 2.76 ^bB
	F	5.405 *	12.154 ***
Erythrophleum fordii	100%	99.8 ± 9.37 ^bA	128.8 ± 11.20 ^bAB
	40%	141.4 ± 5.24 ^aA	168.9 ± 3.36 ^aA
	10%	80.1 ± 4.07 ^cA	99.8 ± 3.83 ^cA
	F	22.233 ***	23.930 ***
Castanopsis hystrix	100%	82.8 ± 4.47 ^aB	109.3 ± 3.40 ^aABC
	40%	46.5 ± 2.51 ^bC	57.6 ± 4.49 ^bC
	10%	47.7 ± 2.92 ^bC	66.5 ± 3.80 ^bC
	F	75.031 ***	49.677 ***
Betula alnoides	100%	73.0 ± 3.51 ^aB	98.4 ± 5.37 ^aBC
	40%	82.6 ± 5.46 ^aB	97.8 ± 5.39 ^aB
	10%	41.6 ± 4.80 ^bC	56.0 ± 4.59 ^bC
	F	25.05 ***	22.465 ***

Table 4. Nitrogen allocation proportion of Rubisco (P_R), bioenergetics (P_B), light-harvesting components (P_L), photosynthetic system (P_P), cell wall (P_CW) and other parts (P_Other) in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Data are means of seven plants per treatment ±SE. Lower case letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among the irradiance treatments, whereas capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among species under same irradiance treatment. F-ratios with statistically significant values denoted by * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 among irradiance treatment.

Tree Species	Irradiance Treatment	P_R (g·g⁻¹)	P_B (g·g⁻¹)	P_L (g·g⁻¹)	P_P (g·g⁻¹)	P_CW (g·g⁻¹)	P_Other (g·g⁻¹)
Dalbergia odorifera	100%	0.135 ± 0.009 ^bB	0.030 ± 0.002 ^bB	0.105 ± 0.008 ^cA	0.269 ± 0.016 ^cB	0.068 ± 0.004 ^aC	0.663 ± 0.015 ^aA
	40%	0.201 ± 0.018 ^aA	0.047 ± 0.003 ^aC	0.132 ± 0.002 ^bA	0.381 ± 0.021 ^bB	0.067 ± 0.006 ^aC	0.552 ± 0.017 ^bA
	10%	0.242 ± 0.016 ^aAB	0.054 ± 0.003 ^aA	0.183 ± 0.005 ^aA	0.479 ± 0.021 ^aA	0.061 ± 0.004 ^aC	0.461 ± 0.023 ^cB
	F	14.001 ***	27.585 ***	54.347 ***	29.423 ***	0.632	29.390 ***
Erythrophleum fordii	100%	0.164 ± 0.010 ^cB	0.043 ± 0.003 ^bB	0.060 ± 0.009 ^cB	0.266 ± 0.018 ^cB	0.052 ± 0.002 ^aC	0.683 ± 0.019 ^aA
	40%	0.268 ± 0.011 ^aB	0.065 ± 0.003 ^aB	0.129 ± 0.004 ^bA	0.462 ± 0.007 ^aB	0.038 ± 0.001 ^bC	0.500 ± 0.007 ^cA
	10%	0.203 ± 0.011 ^bB	0.041 ± 0.002 ^bB	0.150 ± 0.008 ^aB	0.394 ± 0.016 ^bB	0.039 ± 0.002 ^bC	0.568 ± 0.015 ^bA
	F	24.021 ***	25.215 ***	38.638 ***	47.577 ***	24.303 ***	40.909 ***
Castanopsis hystrix	100%	0.302 ± 0.012 ^aA	0.068 ± 0.003 ^aA	0.072 ± 0.008 ^bB	0.441 ± 0.018 ^aA	0.267 ± 0.010 ^bA	0.292 ± 0.019 ^aB
	40%	0.231 ± 0.018 ^bB	0.049 ± 0.005 ^bC	0.130 ± 0.014 ^aA	0.411 ± 0.032 ^aB	0.443 ± 0.022 ^aA	0.146 ± 0.023 ^cB
	10%	0.247 ± 0.010 ^bAB	0.054 ± 0.003 ^bA	0.164 ± 0.013 ^aAB	0.466 ± 0.015 ^aA	0.342 ± 0.028 ^bA	0.192 ± 0.031 ^bD
	F	7.010 **	6.229 **	15.540 ***	1.475	17.205 ***	4.023 *
Betula alnoides	100%	0.256 ± 0.028 ^bA	0.066 ± 0.007 ^bA	0.116 ± 0.011 ^bA	0.439 ± 0.042 ^cA	0.221 ± 0.011 ^aB	0.340 ± 0.042 ^aB
	40%	0.369 ± 0.026 ^aB	0.089 ± 0.006 ^aA	0.119 ± 0.005 ^bA	0.577 ± 0.033 ^aA	0.197 ± 0.011 ^aB	0.227 ± 0.031 ^aB
	10%	0.281 ± 0.017 ^bA	0.063 ± 0.003 ^bA	0.176 ± 0.005 ^aAB	0.521 ± 0.016 ^bA	0.150 ± 0.010 ^bB	0.329 ± 0.021 ^aC
	F	5.979 **	6.189 **	20.386 ***	4.641 *	10.826 **	3.774 *

Table 5. Apparent quantum yield (AQY), dark respiration (R_n), light compensation point (LCP) and light saturation point (LSP) in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Data are means of seven plants per treatment ±SE. Lower case letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among the irradiance treatments, whereas capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among species under same irradiance treatment. F-ratios with statistically significant values denoted by * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 among irradiance treatment.

Tree Species	Irradiance Treatment	AQY (mol·mol⁻¹)	R_n (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	LCP (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	LSP (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)
Dalbergia odorifera	100%	0.052 ± 0.004 ^aA	0.909 ± 0.050 ^aBC	22.1 ± 1.68 ^aA	822.9 ± 27.5 ^aA
	40%	0.059 ± 0.002 ^aA	0.845 ± 0.050 ^aA	14.4 ± 0.73 ^bB	724.3 ± 37.0 ^aBA
	10%	0.058 ± 0.002 ^aA	0.760 ± 0.038 ^aB	7.4 ± 0.43 ^cB	684.3 ± 23.1 ^bA
	F	2.300	2.587	46.127 ***	5.378 *
Erythrophleum fordii	100%	0.047 ± 0.003 ^bA	1.129 ± 0.051 ^aA	13.9 ± 0.81 ^aB	637.1 ± 29.6 ^aB
	40%	0.062 ± 0.002 ^aA	0.873 ± 0.050 ^bA	13.1 ± 1.10 ^aB	633.6 ± 17.1 ^aA
	10%	0.059 ± 0.001 ^aA	0.936 ± 0.030 ^bAB	7.5 ± 0.79 ^bB	522.1 ± 17.2 ^bB
	F	15.924 ***	8.811 **	14.464 ***	6.569 **
Castanopsis hystrix	100%	0.047 ± 0.003 ^aA	1.005 ± 0.067 ^aAB	14.0 ± 1.21 ^aB	632.9 ± 23.4 ^aB
	40%	0.054 ± 0.002 ^aA	0.988 ± 0.040 ^aA	7.3 ± 1.00 ^bC	307.1 ± 26.8 ^bC
	10%	0.054 ± 0.003 ^aA	1.048 ± 0.088 ^aA	7.4 ± 1.21 ^bB	262.1 ± 27.7 ^bC
	F	2.737	0.206	11.226 **	60.359 ***
Betula alnoides	100%	0.049 ± 0.001 ^aA	0.889 ± 0.039 ^aBC	20.8 ± 0.93 ^aA	886.4 ± 43.5 ^aA
	40%	0.055 ± 0.003 ^aA	0.844 ± 0.055 ^aA	18.6 ± 2.49 ^aA	519.3 ± 27.9 ^bB
	10%	0.051 ± 0.003 ^aA	0.834 ± 0.048 ^aAB	10.5 ± 0.94 ^bA	268.6 ± 30.5 ^cC
	F	1.415	0.384	10.989 **	80.343 ***

Table 6. Net CO₂ assimilation rate at PPFD of 100 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (A₁₀₀); net CO₂ assimilation rate at PPFD of 400 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (A₄₀₀); photosynthetic N use efficiency at PPFD of 100 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (PNUE₁₀₀); photosynthetic N use efficiency at PPFD of 400 umol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ (PNUE₄₀₀) in Dalbergia odorifera, Erythrophleum fordii, Betula alnoides, and Castanopsis hystrix grown under three different irradiance treatments. Data are means of seven plants per treatment ± SE. Lower case letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among the irradiance treatments, whereas capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 levels among species under same irradiance treatment. F-ratios with statistically significant values denoted by * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 among irradiance treatment.

Tree Species	Irradiance Treatment	A₁₀₀ (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	A₄₀₀ (μmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹)	PNUE₁₀₀ (μmol·mol⁻¹·s⁻¹)	PNUE₄₀₀ (μmol·mol⁻¹·s⁻¹)
Dalbergia odorifera	100%	2.78 ± 0.41 ^bA	7.38 ± 0.45 ^abAB	20.7 ± 1.36 ^cB	48.2 ± 3.65 ^cB
	40%	4.06 ± 0.08 ^aA	8.02 ± 0.30 ^aA	35.2 ± 0.66 ^bB	69.8 ± 3.35 ^bB
	10%	4.03 ± 0.17 ^aA	6.65 ± 0.36 ^bA	59.2 ± 4.12 ^aAB	97.4 ± 7.32 ^aA
	F	7.114 *	6.206 *	58.81 ***	23.261 ***
Erythrophleum fordii	100%	3.42 ± 0.16 ^bA	6.07 ± 0.24 ^bB	24.2 ± 1.38 ^bB	42.7 ± 1.48 ^cB
	40%	4.04 ± 0.08 ^aA	8.53 ± 0.22 ^aA	32.3 ± 0.72 ^aB	68.4 ± 2.42 ^aB
	10%	3.98 ± 0.18 ^aA	6.31 ± 0.43 ^bA	35.8 ± 1.29 ^aC	56.6 ± 3.11 ^bB
	F	5.426 *	16.016 ***	26.501 ***	22.155 ***
Castanopsis hystrix	100%	3.57 ± 0.12 ^aA	7.67 ± 0.42 ^aAB	49.1 ± 1.83 ^aA	105.4 ± 6.18 ^aA
	40%	3.00 ± 0.15 ^bB	3.98 ± 0.29 ^bB	57.3 ± 4.57 ^aA	76.2 ± 8.00 ^bB
	10%	2.92 ± 0.19 ^bB	3.68 ± 0.31 ^bB	51.8 ± 3.22 ^aBC	65.3 ± 4.99 ^bB
	F	5.107 *	41.202 ***	1.506	10.123 **
Betula alnoides	100%	3.27 ± 0.15 ^aA	7.95 ± 0.52 ^aA	46.4 ± 4.09 ^bA	113.7 ± 12.66 ^aA
	40%	3.52 ± 0.28 ^aAB	7.16 ± 0.68 ^aA	67.3 ± 7.62 ^abA	135.9 ± 14.91 ^aA
	10%	2.92 ± 0.32 ^aB	3.91 ± 0.66 ^bB	72.9 ± 6.33 ^aA	95.6 ± 11.85 ^aA
	F	1.358	12.425 ***	5.074 *	2.852

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tang, J.; Sun, B.; Cheng, R.; Shi, Z.; Luo, D.; Liu, S.; Centritto, M. The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China. Plants 2021, 10, 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102213

AMA Style

Tang J, Sun B, Cheng R, Shi Z, Luo D, Liu S, Centritto M. The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China. Plants. 2021; 10(10):2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tang, Jingchao, Baodi Sun, Ruimei Cheng, Zuomin Shi, Da Luo, Shirong Liu, and Mauro Centritto. 2021. "The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China" Plants 10, no. 10: 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102213

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

Article Menu

The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Results

3. Discussion

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area and Plant Material

4.2. Determination of Gas Exchange and Fluorescence Parameters

4.3. Determination of Mesophyll Conductance, V_cmax, and J_max

4.4. Determination of Additional Leaf Traits

4.5. Calculation of N Allocation in the Photosynthetic Apparatus

4.6. Statistical Analysis

5. Conclusions

Supplementary Materials

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

Article Menu

The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO2 in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Results

3. Discussion

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Area and Plant Material

4.2. Determination of Gas Exchange and Fluorescence Parameters

4.3. Determination of Mesophyll Conductance, Vcmax, and Jmax

4.4. Determination of Additional Leaf Traits

4.5. Calculation of N Allocation in the Photosynthetic Apparatus

4.6. Statistical Analysis

5. Conclusions

Supplementary Materials

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI

The Effect of Low Irradiance on Leaf Nitrogen Allocation and Mesophyll Conductance to CO₂ in Seedlings of Four Tree Species in Subtropical China

4.3. Determination of Mesophyll Conductance, V_cmax, and J_max