Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 415

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why are non-photosynthetic tissues generally 13C enriched compared with leaves in C3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses

Cernusak, Lucas A., Tcherkez, Guillaume, Keitel, Claudia, Cornwell, William K., Santiago, Louis S., Knohl, Alexander, Barbour, Margaret M., Williams, David G., Reich, Peter B., Ellsworth, David S., Dawson, Todd E., Griffiths, Howard G., Farquhar, Graham D., Wright, Ian J.·2009·Functional Plant Biology

Abstract

Non-photosynthetic, or heterotrophic, tissues in C3 plants tend to be enriched in 13C compared with the leaves that supply them with photosynthate. This isotopic pattern has been observed for woody stems, roots, seeds and fruits, emerging leaves, and parasitic plants incapable of net CO2 fixation. Unlike in C3 plants, roots of herbaceous C4 plants are generally not 13C-enriched compared with leaves. We review six hypotheses aimed at explaining this isotopic pattern in C3 plants: (1) variation in biochemical composition of heterotrophic tissues compared with leaves; (2) seasonal separation of growth of leaves and heterotrophic tissues, with corresponding variation in photosynthetic discrimination against 13C; (3) differential use of day v. night sucrose between leaves and sink tissues, with day sucrose being relatively 13C-depleted and night sucrose 13C-enriched; (4) isotopic fractionation during dark respiration; (5) carbon fixation by PEP carboxylase; and (6) developmental variation in photosynthetic discrimination against 13C during leaf expansion. Although hypotheses (1) and (2) may contribute to the general pattern, they cannot explain all observations. Some evidence exists in support of hypotheses (3) through to (6), although for hypothesis (6) it is largely circumstantial. Hypothesis (3) provides a promising avenue for future research. Direct tests of these hypotheses should be carried out to provide insight into the mechanisms causing within-plant variation in carbon isotope composition.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/fp08216

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Metadata

Authors
Cernusak, L. A., Tcherkez, G., Keitel, C., Cornwell, W. K., Santiago, L. S., Knohl, A., Barbour, M. M., Williams, D. G., Reich, P. B., Ellsworth, D. S., Dawson, T. E., Griffiths, H. G., Farquhar, G. D., & Wright, I. J.
Venue
Functional Plant Biology
Published
2009-03-02
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
199-213
ISSN
  • 1445-4408 (ISSN-L)
  • 1445-4416
OpenAlex
W1973786358
Cited by
415
References
3
FWCI
21.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why are non-photosynthetic tissues generally 13C enriched compared with leaves in C3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/fp08216
The paper
Cernusak, L. A., Tcherkez, G., Keitel, C., Cornwell, W. K., Santiago, L. S., Knohl, A., Barbour, M. M., Williams, D. G., Reich, P. B., Ellsworth, D. S., Dawson, T. E., Griffiths, H. G., Farquhar, G. D., & Wright, I. J. (2009). Why are non-photosynthetic tissues generally 13C enriched compared with leaves in C3 plants? Review and synthesis of current hypotheses. Functional Plant Biology. https://doi.org/10.1071/fp08216

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.