Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Modellers often define growth as the development of plant structures from endogenous resources, thus making a distinction between structural (W(S)) and total (W) dry biomass, the latter being the sum of W(S) and the weight of storage compounds. In this study, short-term C and N reserves were characterized experimentally (forms, organ distribution, time changes) in relation to light and nutrition signals, and organ structural growth in response to reserve levels was evaluated. METHODS: Tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum) were grown hydroponically in a growth room with a 12-h photoperiod and an adequate supply of NO(3)(-) (3 mol m(-3)). Three experiments were carried out 18 d after sowing: [NO(3)(-)] was either maintained at 3 mol m(-3), changed to 0.02 mol m(-3) or to 0 mol m(-3). Plants were sampled periodically throughout the light/dark cycles over 24-48 h. Organ W(S) was calculated from W together with the amount of different compounds that act as C and N resources, i.e. non-structural carbohydrates and carboxylates, nitrate and free amino acids. KEY RESULTS: With adequate nutrition, carbohydrates accumulated in leaves during light periods, when photosynthesis exceeded growth needs, but decreased at night when these sugars are the main source of C for growth. At the end of the night, carbohydrates were still high enough to fuel full-rate growth, as W(S) increased at a near constant rate throughout the light/dark cycle. When nitrate levels were restricted, C reserves increased, but [NO(3)(-)] decreased progressively in stems, which contain most of the plant N reserves, and rapidly in leaves and roots. This resulted in a rapid restriction of structural growth. CONCLUSIONS: Periodic darkness did not restrict growth because sufficient carbohydrate reserves accumulated during the light period. Structural growth, however, was very responsive to NO(3)(-) nutrition, because N reserves were mostly located in stems, which have limited nitrate reduction capacity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Magaña et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: