PlantsBook.pdf

2. 2 L-Data Plants First Sergeant Leonid Asipov Introduction 5 ‫מדעית‬ ‫ואמינות‬ ‫מדעיות‬ ‫תוצאות‬ ‫הצגת‬ .............. 5 Theory 6-15 ‫צמחים‬ ‫של‬ ‫פוליטיקה‬ ,‫פילסופיה‬ ................. 6 ‫הבוטניקה‬ ‫משימת‬ ................... 6 7……………Botany T test Two botany conceptions……………7 Enzymes : Structure which bonds substrates…………….8 Enzymes does not need any energy for function…………….11 Energy = movement ……………….11 ‫חום‬ ‫הולכת‬ = ‫ריאקטיביות‬ ................. 12 ‫האנזימים‬ ‫נבנים‬ ‫איך‬ ,‫תבליטנות‬ .............. 11 ‫הפ‬ ‫החיידקים‬ ‫שלושת‬ ‫תאוריית‬ .‫וטוסנטיים‬ ............... 14 ‫צמחים‬ ‫אבקת‬ .......... 15 ‫חמניות‬ ‫תנועת‬ ................ 15 Criticism 17-75 Botany research is not needed anymore………..17 L-Data vs: Development of synchronized, autonomous, and self-regulated oscillations in plant……………………..18 No Oscillations……………………….32 Presentation Of CO2 Gas-exchange experiments………..33 Plant screening systems……………33

3. 1 L-Data vs "Expression of cyanobacterial ictB in higher plants enhanced photosynthesis and growth"…………….34 LData vs "Enhanced photosynthesis and growth of transgenic plants that express ictB, a gene involved in HCO 3–accumulation in cyanobacteria"……………46 L-Data vs "A putative HCO transporter in the cyanobacterium Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7942 "……………….51 L-Data vs "CO2 Concentrating Mechanisms in Algae: Mechanisms, Environmental"…………………55 Transgenic protein enhaces reactivity………………….56 L-Data vs "Changes in the properties of reaction center II during the initial stages of photoinhibition as revealed by thermoluminescence measurements"………………………57 L-Data vs "Thermoluminescence and flash-induced oxygen yield in herbicide resistant mutants of the D1 protein in Synechococcus PCC7942"………………58 The C4 plants photosynthesis is not existant……………59 Sekoia……………………………60 NOT N, possibly only water is reason for difference in weight of wheat……….60 The Ci parameter is WRONG……………….…..60 L-Data vs “The Role of Tobacco Aquaporin1 in Improving Water Use Efficiency, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Yield Production Under Salt Stress1”..………….65 L-Data vs "SYNERGISM OF LIGHT AND FUSICOCCIN ON STOMATAL OPENING" ………..……….74 Cactuses create sugar during the day………….……..75 Development 77-81 (Hebrew) Plant Apical Dominance Model………..77

4. 4 Plant Development Strategy………..80 There is no main growth control in plant : transpiration is related to nutrient transport………………………………….81 Stomata 83-96 Stomata : CO2 Triggers………………….83 Stoma aperture…………………92 CO2 and Stomata…………….93 Stomata do not affect photosynthesis, only transpiration……….93 CO2 is trigger for stomata opening without any biology………..95 Stomatal response to CO2……………..96 Water 97-105 The Role of the Difference Between Plasma and Vacuole Membranes Water Conducting Properties : A Model Approach…………………97 Plant Cappilarity…………………….101 Plant dehydration threshold with respect to transpiration ……………..103 The reason for "digital" effect of drought………………..105 Photosynthesis 105-107 Photosynthesis ……………..105 There is no CO2 fixation : O2 concentration blocks photosyntesis by reverse CO2 formation ………………106 Stomata don't affect photosynthesis…………………..107 Patents 108-125

5. 5 Carbon Enrichment System………………..108 ‫ייבו‬ ‫להגדלת‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫של‬ ‫וויברציה‬ ‫ל‬ ……………….109 ‫גשם‬ ‫מי‬ ‫לאגירת‬ ‫……………………מערכת‬..110 ‫אידוי‬ ‫בסיס‬ ‫על‬ ‫צמיחה‬ ‫לעצים‬ ‫……………………רפסודה‬.110 Transpiration Measurement Method ……………..110 ‫לעלים‬ ‫כלורופלסטים‬ ‫…………………הוספת‬.111 PLASTIC ABOVE THE FIELDS FOR WEED CONTROL………………112 Water consumption measurement system …………………112 ‫בשקיות‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫……………………………גידול‬114 ‫לצמחייה‬ ‫………………………ביוב‬115 Greenhouse of the future………………….115 116 ............ ‫צימ‬ ‫סוכר‬ ‫תוסף‬ : ‫בחושך‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫וח‬ Growing plants in dark, industrial sugar production from basic components CO2 and water…………………117 O2 growth enhancer…………………….118 Urine on leaves of plant to enhance rate of plant addition of tissues……..119 Screening system……………….119 120 ......................... .. ‫השקייה‬ ‫ניסוי‬ 121 ...................... ‫לצמחים‬ ‫ביולוגי‬ ‫דשן‬ LIPID ON PLANTS TO CONSERVE WATER………………..120 ‫הזנת‬ ‫צמחים‬ .................................... 122 ‫השקייה‬ ‫ללא‬ : ‫בים‬ ‫חממות‬ ...................................... 122 Grow on trees. Plants are well grown on tree sugars, water and proteins…….123 Artificial plant…………………………………124 Transpiration measurement……………………124 ‫מצמ‬ ‫חשמל‬ ‫רווח‬ ‫ח‬ ............... ............ 125

6. 6 Introduction ‫מדעית‬ ‫ואמינות‬ ‫מדעיות‬ ‫תוצאות‬ ‫הצגת‬ ‫מדע‬ ‫אנשי‬ ‫בין‬ ‫להטמעה‬ ‫מאד‬ ‫חשוב‬ ‫מושג‬ ‫היא‬ ‫מדעית‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫וסטודנטים‬ : ‫אמינות‬ ‫לחוסר‬ ‫מקומות‬ ‫הרבה‬ ‫טומנים‬ ‫מדעיים‬ ‫ניסויים‬ ,‫למעשה‬ ‫נתונים‬ ‫עיבוד‬ ,‫מדידה‬ ‫באופן‬ , .‫המסקנות‬ ‫והסקת‬ ‫הנתונים‬ ‫הצגת‬ ‫י‬ ‫מדעיים‬ ‫ממחקרים‬ ‫מוטעות‬ ‫מסקנות‬ ‫לנבוע‬ ‫כולות‬ ‫מ‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫חוסר‬ ‫שהתבססו‬ ‫אחרים‬ ‫וחוקרים‬ ‫עצמו‬ ‫לחוקר‬ ‫משאבים‬ ‫של‬ ‫בזבוז‬ ‫ומהווים‬ ‫סתום‬ ‫במבוי‬ ‫נמצאים‬ ‫חוקרים‬ ‫הרבה‬ ‫כזאת‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫מחוסר‬ .‫המחקר‬ ‫על‬ ‫מדעי‬ . ‫אמינות‬ ‫רבדי‬ ‫מספר‬ ‫יש‬ ‫מדעיים‬ ‫ניסויים‬ ‫של‬ ‫לתוצאות‬ : 1 . ‫עצמו‬ ‫הניסוי‬ ‫ביצוע‬ ‫ברמת‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫אפשריים‬ ‫לארטיפקטים‬ ‫לב‬ ‫תשומת‬ ‫המדידות‬ ‫ביצוע‬ ‫נכונות‬ 2 . ‫הניסוי‬ ‫תוצאות‬ ‫עיבוד‬ ‫ברמת‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫התוצאות‬ ‫בעיבוד‬ ‫טעויות‬ ‫המידע‬ ‫כל‬ ‫לעומת‬ ‫הקיים‬ ‫מהמידע‬ ‫חלקים‬ ‫הצגת‬ ‫כמותית‬ ‫מול‬ ‫איכותית‬ ‫הצגה‬ ,‫בסטטיסטיקה‬ ‫שימוש‬ ‫חוסר‬ 1 . ‫התוצאות‬ ‫הצגת‬ ‫ברמת‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫מידע‬ ‫החסרת‬ 4 . ‫הראיות‬ ‫לכל‬ ‫התייחסות‬ : ‫מסקנות‬ ‫הסקת‬ ‫ברמת‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫שיש‬ ‫אחריות‬ ‫חלוקת‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫חוסר‬ ‫של‬ ‫אפשרות‬ ‫שתומן‬ ‫נוסף‬ ‫עניין‬ ‫מסקנות‬ ‫הסקת‬ ,‫נתונים‬ ‫עיבוד‬ ,‫(מדידה‬ ‫במחקר‬ , ‫קשה‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫שלב‬ ‫בכל‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫חוסר‬ .‫מספקת‬ ‫מרכזית‬ ‫בקרה‬ ‫והעדר‬ ‫לאיתור‬ . ‫מובילה‬ ‫במחקר‬ ‫המשתתפים‬ ‫האנשים‬ ‫כל‬ ‫בין‬ ‫אובייקטיביות‬ ‫העדר‬ ‫של‬ ‫אמינות‬ ‫וחוסר‬ ‫לטיוח‬ ‫פעמים‬ ‫הרבה‬ ‫הג‬ ‫אחרות‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫מסויימות‬ ‫בתוצאות‬ ‫שמעוניינים‬ ‫השונים‬ ‫ורמים‬ . Theory ‫צמחים‬ ‫של‬ ‫פוליטיקה‬ ,‫פילסופיה‬

7. 7 LEONID 11/19/2012 9:54:54 AM ‫קומוניסטים=ת‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫ו‬ ‫אחר‬ ‫שדה‬ ‫תות‬ ,‫אור‬ ‫ללא‬ ‫צמח‬ ‫אם‬ ‫גם‬ ‫שדה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫סוכר‬ ‫שולח‬ ‫ו‬ ‫מים‬ . ‫צמח‬ ‫יש‬ ‫גזע‬ ‫ערבוב‬ ‫בלא‬ ‫מאמנינים‬ ‫פשיסטים‬ ‫ים‬ . ‫מת‬ ‫וגטטיביות‬ ‫ע"י‬ ‫רבים‬ . ‫גדול‬ ‫מרחקים‬ :‫השאר=קפיטליזם‬ ‫ים‬ ‫של‬ ‫בעקבות‬ ‫צימוח‬ ‫צ‬ ‫עם‬ ‫ערבוב‬ ‫זרעים‬ ‫פיזור‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ויחידאיות‬ ‫מרוחקים‬ ‫חים‬ ‫המשאבים‬ ‫מבחינת‬ . ‫הבוטניקה‬ ‫משימת‬ Leonid Asipov 12/19/2012 10:27:05 AM ‫הדל‬ ‫לכל‬ ‫שיספיק‬ ‫לסוכר‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫צימוח‬ ‫אידוי‬ ,‫בים‬ ‫הצימוח‬ .‫במדינה‬ ‫ק‬ ‫חממות‬ .‫השקייה‬ ‫מי‬ ‫חסכון‬ ,‫בקרקע‬ ‫המים‬ ‫לעיבוי‬ ‫רשת‬ ‫דרך‬ ‫המים‬ ‫גשמים‬ ‫בזמן‬ ‫מים‬ ‫איסוף‬ ,‫השדה‬ ‫מעל‬ ... (C) ‫אסיפוב‬ ‫לאוניד‬ Botany T test Regular statics table of significance, is wrong for botany. The table : arbitrary values of significance good for a certain field of science. Other fields, other exceptions. Botany has to create own significance table. Opinions of all botanists has to be considered according to amount of plants good for any results discussion and the amount of plants enough for significance claims. The mathematic values were arbitrary and new values for the statistics significance table has to be proposed. The work of talking with all botanists is for a student. Two botany conceptions

8. 8 Leonid Asipov 8/28/2011 12:56:11 PM Two conceptions in botany and life sciences: 1 - Everything is controlled by biological mechanisms. Biological mechanisms presume biological molecules acting as regulators on other biological molecules. The biological molecules alter cell mechanics, chemistry or alter particle construction. 2. There is no biological control. The visible control is due to physical phenomenae such as diffusion rates. The structure of the organism causes the visible control to be. There is no actual control, and everything is diffusion in effect of organism structure (such as leaf form, plant height). In some phenomenae both conceptions can explain the basic principle. Reality can be to either of the theories. Our goal is to develop both conceptions to a state of total understanding. The next stage is more experiments with real plants. Enzymes : Structure which bonds substrates Leonid Asipov 8/26/2011 9:40:05 AM

9. 9 Enzymes are the most important biological molecule. The temperature or the speed of particles of biological organisms cannot exceed little values. The way to achieve reactions is holding of atoms close to each other for a period of time. During the time, a bond is created by the gravitational force. Other option is strong collision (happens not in bio systems). The way to hold the connection of two atoms/molecules is to build a molecule with complementary shape with option to bond partially and temporary. This molecule is randomly bonding the substrates and keeps them together for some time. During this time the bond is created in lower temperatures. The energy or movement of small particles needed is for detachment from the enzyme. The new bond is strong and the enzyme connection and strength is low. The enzyme degrades during short time. In the cell there is large amount of enzymes of various substrates and this enhances the possibility of bonds between substrates. Any mechanical structure of enzymes is not likely. The principle which stands micro levels is complementary structure which randomly bonds the substrates. No affinity is possible but the complementary shape keeps the two substrates together and bond is created.

10. 11

11. 11 Enzymes does not need any energy for function. Leonid Asipov 8/29/2011 6:22:13 PM Enzymes does not need any energy for function. Since speed is no longer needed for the activation energy, no energy is needed. Activation energy is only an energetic gap in the opposite direction. If two molecules are held together, no speed is needed and thus no energy. The enzymes act as holding molecules. The connection between substrates is made by gravitation and enzyme degradation is spontaneous since the molecule is unstable. In order to disconnect the enzyme and the substrate, small destructive molecules are needed. Such molecules are called "reactivity". Reactivity cause enzymes to degrade. The degradation is needed for the detachment of the enzyme and substrate. Due to reactivity, biological molecules are temporary. Energy = movement. Sugar=> small particles enlarging heat flow. Energy needed for life= movement or vibration.

12. 12

13. 11

14. 14

15. 15 ‫צמחים‬ ‫אבקת‬ ‫מכיל‬ ‫אבקה‬ ‫גרגר‬ ‫כל‬ .‫ליובש‬ ‫עמידים‬ ‫צמח‬ ‫תאי‬ = ‫צמחים‬ ‫אבקת‬ ‫התא‬ .‫תאים‬ ‫הרבה‬ ‫שלם‬ ‫לאורגניזם‬ ‫מגודלים‬ ‫להיות‬ ‫יכולים‬ ‫ים‬ . ‫חומציים‬ ‫חלבונים‬ ‫ליצור‬ ‫מתחילה‬ ‫הפרח‬ ‫של‬ ‫לסטיגמא‬ ‫שמגיעה‬ ‫אבקה‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫תאי‬ ‫עם‬ ‫מתנגשת‬ ‫האבקה‬ ‫הכבידה‬ ‫ומכח‬ ‫העלי‬ ‫את‬ ‫שמפרקים‬ ‫ה"נקביים‬ ". ‫לצד‬ ‫מתחלקים‬ ‫האבקה‬ ‫של‬ ‫והתאים‬ ‫דופן‬ ‫ללא‬ "‫ה"נקביים‬ ‫התאים‬ ‫התאים‬ ‫לתאים‬ ‫כניסה‬ ‫של‬ ‫למצב‬ ‫עד‬ "‫ה"נקביים‬ ‫גרעיני‬ = ‫אבקה‬ ‫תאי‬ = ‫המשך‬ . .‫אוכל‬ ‫אבקת‬ ‫למטרת‬ ‫אבקה‬ ‫לגדל‬ ‫ניתן‬ .‫החדש‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫תאים‬ ‫האבקה‬ = ‫לא‬ ‫קשים‬ ‫בתנאיים‬ ‫ועמידה‬ ‫פוטוסינטטית‬ . ‫חמניות‬ ‫תנועת‬

16. 16

17. 17 ‫גרוויטציה‬ = ‫קפילריות‬ Vibration such as voice can accelerate diffusion. Particles colliding with the vibration object can accelerate diffuse quickly. Flowers are located on ends of branches where transpiration is large. Drawing of matter such as sugars, proteins and fats are best on branches with large transpiration. Transpiration draws water and matter forward. Criticism Botany research is not needed anymore

18. 18 Leonid Asipov 8/21/2011 12:38:48 PM ‫הידע‬ ‫כל‬ ‫את‬ ‫כבר‬ ‫יש‬ : ‫בוטניקה‬ ‫יותר‬ ‫צריך‬ ‫לא‬ . ‫יותר‬ ‫נחוצים‬ ‫שלא‬ ‫נושאים‬ ‫צורך‬ ‫ללא‬ ,‫סתם‬ ‫חוקרים‬ ‫המדענים‬ . .‫נוסף‬ ‫למחקר‬ ‫צורך‬ ‫אין‬ ,‫מספיק‬ ‫ידוע‬ ,‫הצמח‬ ‫מדעי‬ ‫של‬ ‫בנושאים‬ ‫התעסוקה‬ ‫מלשכת‬ ‫קצבה‬ ‫ולקבל‬ ‫הביתה‬ ‫לחזור‬ ‫יכולם‬ ‫המדענים‬ . ‫שנחוץ‬ ‫מה‬ ‫כל‬ ‫ל‬ ‫אנושות‬ - ‫הז‬ ‫בנק‬ .‫צמחים‬ ‫של‬ ‫זרעים‬ ‫בנק‬ ‫ר‬ ‫עי‬ ‫מטפח‬ ‫ם‬ ,‫סוכר‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ,‫פירות‬ ‫של‬ ‫מקסימלי‬ ‫מספר‬ ,‫גודל‬ : ‫רצויות‬ ‫תכונות‬ ‫עם‬ ‫זנים‬ ‫מלח‬ ‫ריכוז‬ , ‫הטיפוח‬ .‫גדילה‬ ‫מהירות‬ ,‫חלבון‬ ‫ריכוז‬ - ‫מגדלים‬ ‫קדם‬ ‫בימי‬ ‫כמו‬ .‫פשוט‬ ‫הטיפוח‬ .‫המשך‬ ‫בדור‬ ‫מרבים‬ ‫טובים‬ ‫הכי‬ ‫הצמחים‬ ‫את‬ .‫צמחים‬ - ‫מספר‬ ‫דורות‬ , ‫האחרון‬ ‫הדור‬ - ‫הרבה‬ ‫יש‬ ‫הזרעיים‬ ‫בבנק‬ .‫לזרעיים‬ .‫זנים‬ ‫והרבה‬ ‫מינים‬ ‫אחת‬ ‫פעם‬ ‫זרעיים‬ ‫קונים‬ ‫חקלאים‬ - ‫אחוז‬ ‫יבול‬ ‫בכל‬ ‫לחקלאי‬ ‫יש‬ ‫כך‬ ‫אחר‬ ‫לזרעיים‬ ‫שגודל‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫של‬ ‫מסויים‬ . ‫עשבים‬ ‫ד‬ ‫נג‬ .‫וטבק‬ ‫שום‬ : ‫טבעיים‬ ‫אמצעים‬ ‫יש‬ ‫מזיקים‬ ‫חרקים‬ ‫נגד‬ ‫מנצחים‬ ‫שמגדלים‬ ‫הצמחים‬ ‫רוב‬ .‫אדם‬ ‫עבודת‬ ‫של‬ ‫אמצעים‬ ‫יש‬ ‫שוטים‬ ‫השוטים‬ ‫והצמחים‬ ‫בשדה‬ ‫בתחרות‬ ‫מ‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ופיעים‬ . ‫אחרות‬ ‫וקטניות‬ ‫שועית‬ ,‫אפונה‬ ‫גידול‬ ‫עם‬ ‫אפשריים‬ ‫טבעיים‬ ‫דשנים‬ ‫שנים‬ ‫במספר‬ ‫פעם‬ ‫בשדה‬ . ‫השקייה‬ - ‫השוטים‬ ‫העשבים‬ ‫כמות‬ ‫את‬ ‫שמקטינה‬ ‫טפטוף‬ ‫עם‬ ‫רגילה‬ - ‫לעשבים‬ ‫אור‬ ‫שממסכים‬ ‫הצמחים‬ ‫לייד‬ ‫ההשקייה‬ ‫כי‬ . ‫השכלה‬ ‫דורשים‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ייחורים‬ ‫גידול‬ ‫כגון‬ ‫פשוטים‬ ‫בוטניים‬ ‫אמצעים‬ ‫אק‬ ‫ד‬ ‫מית‬ . ‫בו‬ ‫ק‬ ‫מה‬ ‫על‬ ?‫תרומתכם‬ ‫מה‬ ‫טנאים‬ ‫י‬ ‫הצמחים‬ ‫תורת‬ ? ‫כסף‬ ‫בלתם‬ - ‫את‬ ‫להעיף‬ ‫הזמן‬ ‫הגיע‬ .‫כלום‬ ‫הוסיפה‬ ‫לא‬ ‫המודרנה‬ .‫עתיקה‬ ‫המדענים‬ ‫כל‬ . L-Data vs: Development of synchronized, autonomous, and self-regulated oscillations in plant

19. 19 ‫לאוניד‬ ‫אסיפוב‬ 11/14/2012 6:27:04 PM Leonid Asipov, CEO L-Data P.S I was a student of the publishers and the data abundant. Please consider the papers I enclose scientifically. SUMMARY NO SHORT TERM OSCILLATIONS OF PLANT TRASPIRATION EXISTENT. THE MEASUREMENT EFFECT IS DUE TO MEASUREMENT INACCURACY Flaws in the reported article. 1. SIMILAR OSCILLATIONS WITHOUT IMPORTANCE DAY/DARK 2. NO SHORT TERM OSCILLATIONS AT GAS EXCHANGE MEASUREMENT 3. OSCILLATIONS ARE SMALLER THAN THE NORMAL INACUURACY OF A ELECTRONIC SCALE: +- 2 grams (ACCORDING TO PRODUCER) Data from Tedea-Vishay 1040 C3 transducer. Total error : 0.02% of rated output. 0.02% of 5000 grams (average plant) is +- 1 gram. The total error of course is measured in ideal conditions of humidity, noise, temperature and wind. Normal

20. 21 experimental conditions of course Elevates the noise. THE NOISE OF WEIGHT SCALE IS AT LEAST +-1 gram. Actual noise: +- 2 grams. 1. There is inability to differentiate between oscillations due to fluctuation in light, temperature, humidity and water availability and the reported "spontaneous" oscillations. The reported experiments were held in a greenhouse with fluctuating irradiation parameter. The claim for "spontaneous" transpiration oscillations is impossible due to unstable environment. The control is a wet blanket positioned on a similar scale weight. The short term fluctuations of the control is without any significant correlation to plants, suggesting the short term fluctuations are not related to temperature or irradiation, but another sensor of transpiration (gas exchange of a single leaf) suggests the total absence of oscillations on basis of short term periods of less than 5 minutes. Since the temperature or light was not measured by any other sensor than the scale, an artifact can be speculated. The control should have been additional sensor such as light, temperature or humidity simultaneous to the weight measurement. The absence of a proper control to the experiment suggests improper scientific approach based on a single device. The electronic scale has certain accuracy. The minimal accuracy stands for 0.02 % from the weight, and about +- 1 grams. The size of the reported oscillations is about +- 1 gram. Similar to minimal inaccuracy, suggesting the short term oscillations are noise. 2. The weight measurement should have been held in controlled environment, to avoid any fluctuations of light as effect on transpiration. Since the experiment was held

21. 21 in unstable light, some of the oscillations may be due to external irradiation fluctuations… The experimental setup Fig 1A: Whole plant on a weight scale for continuous transpiration measurement. Readings every 10 seconds, average to 3 minutes. Fig 1B: Gas-exchange measurement of a single leaf. Points are measured every 2 minutes.

22. 22 The size of the oscillations is similar to normal measurement noise Fig2: Weight scale measurement of a whole plant.

23. 21 Inaccuracies unseen since the total weight of the plant is much larger than the noise. Fig 3: Small noises are seen after differentiation since the transpiration value between each point and the following point is only ~10 grams. The noise is 0.02% of total plant weight (about +-1 grams). Noise is 20% of measured value. Significance of results exists when value of transpiration is much larger than noise. On scale of 30 minutes the extent of the noise is 2.5%. After averaging on the range of 30 minutes, the oscillations are correlated with the irradiation levels (Fig 6). PAPER 1: DATA FROM MSC THESIS ACCEPTED BY THE CAMPUS OF REHOVOT. Simultaneous measurement of Gas-Exchange and Scales. Additional sensor.

24. 24 The scale is only one sensor. Artifact regarding the scale itself is to consider. The control of the scale is transpiration measured by gas- exchange method. The oscillations are expected to be larger, since a single leaf is less synchronized than the whole plant. The more stomata is measured, the less oscillations are expected, since the oscillations of single stomata are averaged. The whole plant transpiration can be considered as NON oscillating PARAMETER. Experiment Setup 1. Load Cell A whole tomato plant is positioned on a load cell in a water container. The rate of transpiration is calculated from weight loss of the plant and the container. 2.Gas-exchange The rate of transpiration of the same plant is simultaneously measured using gas exchange method on a single leaf in the upper part of the plant. The experiment was made on a well watered plant during a whole day in natural light. Results

25. 25 Fig 4: Simultaneous measurement of transpiration using load cell and gas exchange methods. Conclusions The oscillations are the similar size during the night and the day periods. The forecast is that during high transpiration period, the oscillations are supposed to be higher. However the oscillations, are not different. The fact that the oscillations are abundant during the night suggests that the oscillations are due to measurement artifact, which is basically inaccuracy of the weight scale. The accuracy is 0.02 % which is about +- 2 grams. The reported short term oscillations are about the same size, ~+-1 gram.

26. 26 The lack of any oscillations during the night period observed in gas-exchange measurement, suggests that the oscillations are an artifact related to the electronic scale. During the day period, there are long-term light-correlated oscillations seen also in gas-exchange experiment. The fact that the experiment was held in natural light, adds uncertainty to the experiment. There is a degree of oscillations related to light fluctuations. The scale weight oscillations are hardly differentiated from light oscillations, however, the nocturnal oscillation of the weight suggests that the oscillations are an artifact. The better experiment is to measure in controlled environment, with constant light levels. The oscillations of a single leaf are expected to be larger than the oscillations of a whole plant. Light-Driven oscillations affect more higher leaves. The whole plant is less affected due to shading of leaves. The following chart consists of a smoothed (30 minutes moving average) weight scale experiment and a simultaneous gas exchange measurement. Chart 1: Simultaneous measurement of plant transpiration: Gas exchange –and scale. From Maters thesis Leonid Asipov, 2011.

27. 27 Fig 5: 1: Light (ORANGE) 2: Transpiration of a leaf(BLUE) 3. Transpiration of whole plant(DARK BLUE) Light: SUNLIGHT. LONG TERM FLACTUATIONS ARE CLEAR IN GAS EXCHANGE AND SCALES. Short term oscillations are random and night/day unspecific. Longer oscillations (0.5 hour) are related to fluctuations of irradiation levels. The pattern of the correlation is seen both in gas-exchange and scales experiment. Longer term oscillations are related to irradiation fluctuations. The short term oscillations seen on electronic scales measurement, are related to weight measurement inaccuracy. We would expect that oscillations in transpiration rate

28. 28 should be larger at daytime since transpiration is larger. The measured oscillations were found to be similar during DAY/NIGHT, suggesting the oscillations are not related to the transpiration rate but to spontaneous measurement noise. SHORT TERM OSCILLATIONS ARE ONLY SEEN AT ELECTRONIC SCALES MEASUREMENT OF A WHOLE PLANT. The significance of the measurement of the scales is when the transpiration is larger significantly than the measurement noise. The transpiration of 0.5 hour is 80 grams at maximum transpiration levels. The noise is 0.02 % which is about +- 1 grams. 2 grams is 1.25% of the measurement. The smaller the scale of consideration, the degree of noise is larger than the total transpiration during the period of time. The transpiration during 3 minutes is 8 grams. 1 grams of 8 is 12.5%. The extent of the spontaneous oscillations is large and the spontaneous noise on the scale of 3 minutes (the considered time scale of the reported article) is similar to the reported oscillations(~10% of the measurement). Since the reported oscillations are similar to the spontaneous noise of the electronic scale, short time periods are not to be considered significant to the measurement. The measurement is considered to be significant when the extent of the transpiration is significantly larger than the noise. The time scale to consider is larger than 0.5 hour. The short term fluctuations are artifact.

29. 29 Fig 6: Measurements each 10 sec, averaged to 3 minutes. Y Axis: weight loss [grams/sec] X Axis: Time of day PURPLE: Transpiration without smoothing GREEN: Smoothing 13 points RED: Smoothing 25 points "The term" short term oscillations are related to fluctuations of transpiration on scale of less than 3 minutes. The short term oscillations are considered an artifact of the electronic scale. Transpiration and Photosynthesis measurement in controlled environment: stable transpiration parameter, changes due to CO2 changes in the air. GAS EXCHANGE METHOD SHOW NO SHORT TERM

30. 11 OSCILLATIONS IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT 1. Gas-exchange measurement of photosynthesis and transpiration in controlled environment: no short term oscillations, transpiration responds to changes in CO2. Fig 7: 1: orange Light levels. 2. Purple CO2 Concentration 3. Green Photosynthesis 4. Blue Transpiration of a tomato plant is controlled room. Measured by gas-exchange method.

31. 11 Fig 8: Gas-exchange measurement of photosynthesis and transpiration in controlled environment: no short term oscillations, transpiration responds to changes in CO2. Similar experiment Gas exchange method works on a single leaf. The speculated oscillations should have been larger since synchronization of oscillations is hard to imagine. Nevertheless, no short term oscillations in plant transpiration are evident in gas-exchange measurement of transpiration. CONCLUSION: THERE ARE NO SHORT TERM OSCILLATIONS IN PLANT TRANSPIRATION L-Data http://www.ldata.co.il

32. 12 No Oscillations wep Leonid Ldata 1/26/2012 11:52:55 AM ‫מדידה‬ ‫של‬ ‫שנתיים‬ ‫של‬ ‫מחקר‬ .‫בטרנספירציה‬ ‫אוסילציות‬ ‫אין‬ ‫של‬ ‫לארטיפקט‬ ‫המנחים‬ ‫את‬ ‫הוביל‬ ‫רועשים‬ ‫אלקטרוניים‬ ‫ממשקלים‬ ‫המשקל‬ .‫המים‬ ‫אידוי‬ ‫מהירות‬ ‫את‬ ‫מחשבים‬ ‫שממנו‬ ‫המתח‬ ‫תנודת‬ ‫גזים‬ ‫חילוף‬ ‫של‬ ‫מדידה‬ ‫לעומת‬ ‫מדוייק‬ ‫לא‬ ‫האלקטרוני‬ . ‫והתנודות‬ ‫אוסילטוריות‬ ‫תנודות‬ ‫שום‬ ‫מדווח‬ ‫לא‬ ‫גזים‬ ‫חילוף‬ ‫שראינו‬ - ‫לאור‬ ‫קשורות‬ .

33. 11 Presentation Of CO2 Gas-exchange experiments Leonid Ldata 10/10/2011 9:43:59 AM Proper presentation of CO2 gas exchange measurements has to be CO2R-Photo and CO2R-Transpiration. Always on the x axis, a variated parameter has to be presented. All comparable points has to share one X value. On a single x value Y values represent different experiments. Plants are compared by photosynthesis and transpiration at same CO2R (external CO2 concentration). Two charts are to be presented: One for Transpiration and one for photosynthesis. Conclusions can be made on both physiological parameters while each is presented as function of CO2 in the air. Plant screening systems Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 12:37:42 PM Plant screening systems The bad systems 1. Gas exchange Limitations : Small count of measurements are possible.

34. 14 Only one measurement at one time. Different measurement daytime. Different age of plants. Unnatural light usually the method. The cold artificial light is not transpiration inductive as sunlight. MASS PLANT SCREEN IMPOSSIBLE. Result : studies based on few plants and insignificant results. 2. Weight scale measurement. Due to humidity, the weight of the plants rises. The rise in unpredictable due to instability of temperature, irradiation, and humidity. The good system Real water volume measurement. Dry weight measurement. WUE= DRY WEIGHT[g] / TOTAL WATER[g] Larger transpiration, LESS WUE. WITH LESS WUE BUT LARGER MASS OF PLANT, better grow more ORGANISMS WITH HIGH WUE. L-Data vs "Expression of cyanobacterial ictB in higher plants enhanced photosynthesis and growth" Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 10:57:26 AM From letter to the editorial director of the magazine… "My Name is Leonid Asipov. I am the co-author of the

35. 15 article and the worker which accomplished the experiments. The data results are insignificant and no conclusions are possible on basis of the results. Whole experiments were neglected by the main author of the article and the conclusions are scientific lies… " TOPICS 1. ONLY PARTIAL DATA WAS PRESENTED. THE ADDITIONAL PLANTS SHOW NO SIGNIFICANCE RELATIVE TO WT. 2. SECOND GENERATION OF PLANTS, GROWN OUT OF THE BEST 1-ST GENERATION PLANTS, SHOW NO SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL. 3. FALSE CONCLUSION IN ABSTRACT OF THE ARTICLE, ACCORING TO THE AUTHOR, THE ENHANCEMENT OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN ONLY AT LIMITING CO2 CONDITIONS, HOWEVER, THE RESULTS (BASED ON ONLY 1 PLANT) SHOW THAT AT ALL CO2 LEVELS, THE TRANSGENIC PLANTS ARE BETTER. NOTE THAT MOST OF THE DATA (THE REST 36 TRANSGENIC PLANTS) WERE NOT PUBLISHED. 4. No significance tests were calculated. The group of transgenic plants is too small(4 plants). THE REAL DATA: EMPIRIC MEASUREMENTS OF GAS- EXCHANGE OF LEAVES: WT VS TRANSGENIC PLANTS. Time of day during measurement

36. 16 The measurement is Gas-Exchange of single leaves. Transgenic and wt plants are similarly measured by the gas-exchange device, in elevating CO2 concentrations and in similar temperature and light conditions. The time of day of the measurement of each plant was different. Part of the plants were measured during morning and part, during the evening. The difference of the Photosynthesis rate between the different times of day is great. During the evening, the plants were photosynthesizing many hours already and part of the enzymes needs regeneration. Moring is hours of highest photosynthesis rates. Note that there is large differences between the photosynthesis and transpiration rates of the plants. Part of the large differences is due to different time of day during measurement. Scientific conclusions The plants are to be measured in equal conditions: equal time of day and equal age. When the experiment is large, the task is impossible. Since the gas-exchange measurement device is based on a single leaf and is expensive, in addition to long measurement time of the CO2 curve (at least 15 minutes for each plants + acclimation time) and large number of plants demanding other method for plant screening for better photosynthesis and transpiration properties. Measurement in a single CO2 concentration is partial solution for possible measurement of many plants in short period of time. The results of the article: partial data was presented. All the transgenic plants are to be considered similar "treatment" and a large number of plants are to be measured. T significance tests are to be calculated. If some particular transgenic plant is for any reason is

37. 17 considered to be "other treatment", the plant is to be cloned to next generation and large amount of plants are to be measured in order to perform T significance tests. Second generation of arabidopsis(NOT PUBLISHED DATA) Second generation was cloned of the 4 top considered transgenic plants and the results showed no significant difference relative to wt plants. THE PAPER WAS PUBLISHED WITH WRONG CONCLUSIONS BASED ON PARTIAL DATA, WHEN ALL DATA WAS ABUNDANT. THE SCIENTISTS ARE LIERS. Presentation of all the data The real Gas-Exchange data. The first experiment included 37 transgenic arabidopsis plants vs 7 wt plants. The published chart however consists of only 1 transgenic plant. The researchers have neglected all the rest 36 plants and CONCLUDED FALSE conclusions, according to which the transgenic protein has positive effect on photosynthesis of plants. The absence of statistics The variation of the plants is high and T significance tests of all the 37 plants vs wt show no significance at all. The experiment of protein transformation is to be considered similar “treatment”. The 4 top plants were cloned to the next generation and similar tests were conducted. No significance was seen. Original chart published in a seminar: only 4 plants of 37 transgenic plants were published.

38. 18 In the paper, only the top plant (1) was published. In the article Y standard deviation bars of wt did not appear. Note the inconsistent conclusion in abstract of the article : “photosynthesis was enhanced under limiting and not under saturating CO2 concentrations…” The first (published) transgenic plant is better photosynthetically at ALL CO2 points(NOTE THE REST 36 PLANTS WHICH ARE NOT). All 37 transgenic plants. Only top 1 was published. The rest of the plants are with large variance. Better or worse than wt. Wt is also variant. Note that only 7 wt plants were measured. More plants, more variance. Photosynthetically, Only the top (1) plant is better then wt.

39. 19 THE PUBLISHER DID PUBLISH ONLY 1 TRANSGENIC PLANT. REST OF THE DATA WAS HIDDEN. THE SCEITIFIC FRAUD WAS CAUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2nd generation arabidopsis (number of plants > 30). UNSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WT AND THE TRANSGENIC.

40. 41 The protein was also tested in other plants. Similar gas- exchange experiments were conducted. The protein does NOT enhance photosynthesis or prevent transpiration… Soybean experiment. The theory behind the article is wrong.

41. 41 Theoretic criticism. The CO2 channel in chloroplast is not needed : the membrane keeps the unique environment in chloroplast. Channels conduct to and from the chloroplast. The reason of the membrane is to block particles from diffusion from the chloroplast to the cytoplasm. Additional CO2 channel in chloroplast membrane would have forced diffusion of small and medium particles from the chloroplast to the cytoplasm, slowing the enzymatic processes in the chloroplast. The diffusion of CO2 to chloroplast is fast due to large surface area/volume ratio. The main slowing process is diffusion through the cytoplasm. The surface area of a chloroplast is large relative to volume…. The main obstruction to diffusion of CO2 from the air the chloroplast is cytoplasm volume and cytoplasm membrane… The distance of diffusion is the whole cytoplasm… The distance of diffusion through the chloroplast is small and don't forget the large surface area / volume ratio of the chloroplast which cause fast diffusion through the membrane. The conclusion is that no CO2 channels are needed to chloroplast membrane. Addition of CO2 channel, don't enhance any processes in the plant cell…And might slow some processes by diffusion of needed particles from chloroplast to the cell cytoplasm. Bacterial proteins does not express properly in higher organisms. Note folding proteins which are needed. Expression of bacterial protein in higher plants: wrong concept. It is well known in science that proteins from

42. 42 eukaryotes cannot be easily expressed in prokaryotes. In order to create the antibodies, mammal or fly biological systems are needed. The 3rd structure of the proteins need folding proteins. Spontaneous expression of a bacterial protein in plants is not likely to produce a proper protein. The folding proteins of the plant are not compatible. A whole set of additional proteins are needed in order to create a proper protein. The ribosomes of bacteria are different, suggesting the building of the proteins is as well. Possible even the genetic code differs and codons code to other amino acids. The task of the researchers is to prove the protein function, 3-d structure and proper attachment of the protein in the chloroplast membrane. Since the protein was described as "putative", and no 3d structure was proved, as well as no positioning in the chloroplast membrane, it is impossible to claim any biological effect. The foreign bacterial protein may be malfunctional and not even expressed in chloroplast. The difference of the plants in sampling time The experiment was sampled during 2 months and life of arabidopsis plant is about 3 months only. The first plants were the best transgenics, the control plants were measured during the last 4 days of experiment. The control plants were 2 months older than the best (published) transgenics. The difference of the plants is mostly at transpiration parameter, not photosynthesis, and the root system of the transgenic plants which are older by two months is obviously larger, and thus the transpiration. The difference between the transgenic and wt plants is due to age, no genetic differences. External CO2 vs Photosynthesis (wt vs best transgenics)

43. 41 External CO2 vs transpiration: transpiration of wt plants is larger (most possibly because of root system)

44. 44 The ages and sampling dates : PROPER SCIENTIFIC WAY The proper way of molecular biology is protein crystallization to prove proper function : CO2 channel. CO2 channels, as any channel is a pipe-like protein. The pipe is only molecule size specific. CO2 channels conduct medium and small size molecules such as water, CO2, H and other. Proof of protein expression and positioning in chloroplast membranes. The protein has to be proven to have proper channel function and positioning.

45. 45 ONLY AFTER PROPER MOLECULAR PROOF, transgenic plants are to be grown and compared with wt plants. BEFOREHAND we cannot even ask any scientific question, since the protein may be not a channel, not properly built by the plant protein building machinery or not to be positioned in the chloroplast membrane. GUESSING is not proper science. THEORY HAS TO PERCEDE the scientific research with all the possibilities of the results. The Ci parameter : wrong science The Ci parameter is wrong. Photosynthesis is linked to X and Y axis on Ci-Photo charts. Proper comparison is possible between curves is possible at similar X points. The empirically changed parameter is the external CO2 concentration (CO2R). Photosynthesis and Transpiration are biological parameters affected by the external CO2 change. The proper way to compare the effect of external CO2 on photosynthesis and transpiration is to present the external [CO2] on the X axis and plot 2 separate curves for transpiration and photosynthesis. The Ci parameter is wrong : Ci = External [CO2] * STOMATA APERTURE AS TRANSPIRATION * pressure / PHOTOSYNTHESIS * leaf temperature One Ci, different Photosynthesis and transpiration values. If transpiration and photosynthesis is high, the ci is same if transpiration and photosynthesis is low.

46. 46 When plotting relative to photosynthesis, points are compared at different X values, which are related to Y (PHOTOSYNTHESIS) . The ci parameter cannot tell anything about the real properties. Since it is basically ratio of TRANSPIRATION/PHOTOSYNTHESIS. PHOTOSYNTHEIS and TRANSPIRATION IS TO BE PRESENTED AS FUNCTION OF EXTERNAL CO2 CONCENTRATION. LData vs "Enhanced photosynthesis and growth of transgenic plants that express ictB, a gene involved in HCO 3–accumulation in cyanobacteria" Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 11:46:40 AM Under low relative humidity, there is more CO2 abundant and therefore the stomata are more closed. Photosynthesis is enhanced. Under high humidity concentrations, there is less concentration of CO2 in the air, and thus photosynthesis is declined.

47. 47 We would expect the protein to enhance at higher CO2 concentrations, When CO2 is a limitation. The results are opposite to the expectation. Our conclusion that the article is a scientific error. Internal article inconsistency. Since there almost no PHOTOSYNTHESIS dependence on stomata aperture (Fig 1), The photosynthesis under any humidity is relatively constant. The only factor is humidity which lowers the CO2 concentration of the air. According to the article, at lower CO2 concentrations, WT plants are better. WT is the better CO2 conductor than the transgenic plants. The "faster" growth of the transgenic plants at lower humidity, most possibly is accompanied with higher transpiration rates. Why the Water USE Efficiency parameter was not calculated? The transpiration was reported to be similar between the wt and the transgenic plants. Why more growth at lower humidity, at higher CO2? "CO2 compensation point": the plant is breathing more and thus there is more CO2. More energetically demanding plant. The activation point is lower at transgenic plants, proving

48. 48 more cell breathing, thus more CO2 near the chloroplasts and thus earlier photosynthesis activation. The real DATA The number of plants is only 4 transgenic plants vs 1 wt. How is it possible to conclude anything of so few plants? Part of the transgenic plants are not better, how to explain? If part of transgenic plants are to consider other properties than the rest of the plants, the plants should have been cloned to the next generation and large number of plants were supposed to be sampled. Conclusions are to be made on basis of T significance tests of many plants and not on only 4 transgenic and 1 wt plant. The Arabidopsis conclusion was based on 2 transgenic and 1 wt plant. Conclusions could not have been made due to too small plants group. The wt plants are relatively at the average of the transgenic plants CO2 curve. Why the conclusion was that the transgenic plants are better, when some transgenic plants were not? Why DO we care about photosynthesis at limiting conditions. The real conditions at fields are not limiting. There is no advantage of transgenic plants and NO transpiration difference. The stomata respond to CO2 with closure. Better photosynthesis, lower CO2, more stomata aperture and MORE TRANSPIRATION. If the plants are better photosynthethicly at lower humidity, MORE TRANSPIRATION is EXPECTED but was not reported. CO2 is the main trigger of stomata aperture, and photosynthesis is related to CO2 concentration in the leaf

49. 49 and near the stomata. At high photosynthesis, more transpiration is expected. DATA INSTABILITY: There was too many samples and the AIR CO2 concentration at every sample is not clear. Either the researchers were only slightly changing the AIR CO2 concentration, or there was no enough time of acclimation to the external CO2 conditions. The differences in Ci is at almost every sample, was there a real change is the air CO2? MORE ACCLIMATION TIME IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PLANT AFTER CO2 changes in the air. The Ci parameter has to be constant and only then the sample to be taken. There are more than 20 samples of every plant and the concentration of CO2 was changed between 50 and ~800 (UNMENTIONED AT ARTICLE) . Was the external CO2 changed at every point? Why there is more than one sampling at a single CO2 point? Acclimation times and CO2 concentration points were unmentioned at Materials and Methods. Growth results There was too few plants to conclude any conclusion. Conclusions are to be based on large number of plants and statistical T tests are to be performed. The growth in lower humidity (which is seen as higher photosynthesis measured at the external to leaf air) would have affected transpiration. Higher CO2 of the air is causing stomata aperture to grow, and thus the transpiration rate is HIGHER. The transgenic plants are more water DEMANDING, which is not positive to agriculture.

50. 51 "The experiments were held 6 times", where are the results? Why the statistical data was not presented? 70% RH is wide and common humidity. Under many agricultural applications there is no advantage of the protein. WHY TO ADVANCE PARTIAL AND UNCLEAR SOLUTION which is not better at most cases? Conclusions 1. The better photosynthesis at lower humidity is not logical. There is more CO2 in the air. Better CO2 assimilation is of WT plants. The protein enhances CO2 transport only at higher CO2 concentrations. INCONSISTENCY. The transgenic plants do not grow better at lower co2 concentrations, but at higher ones. 2. The limiting CO2 concentrations are not real at earth. Normal air has no limitation of CO2 (~400ppm). No advantage of the protein. 3. NO EFFECT ON TRANSPIRATION WAS REPORTED, which is impossible. More photosynthesis, more stomata aperture, since stomata are triggered by CO2 concentration. 4. Higher transpiration rates are expected from transgenic plants due to higher photosynthesis. The transgenic plants are WATER DEMANDING. 5. The water use efficiency was NOT CALCULATED. 6. Experiments were based on SMALL NUMBER OF PLANTS. 7. NO STATISTICS WERE PRESENTED.

51. 51 CONCLUSIONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE BASED ON ONLY 4 TRANSGENIC AND 1 WT PLANT. TRANSGENIC PLANTS AS PRESENTED ARE MORE WATER DEMANDING AND GROW BETTER AT HIGHER CO2 CONCENTRATIONS (LOW HUMIDITY) L-Data vs "A putative HCO transporter in the cyanobacterium Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7942 " Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 11:54:34 AM CO2 CHANNELS ARE NOT NEEDED IN BACTERIA Bacteria have large surface area/volume ratio, and thus there is no channels needed to conduct water or CO2. The mutant, which needs more CO2 for proper photosynthesis rate, can be defected in any photosynthetic-related protein, not especially CO2 channels. If there are CO2 channels in bacteria, why to add a channel to a chloroplast? The channels in bacteria would have forced small molecules such as H, H2O, CO2 and many more molecules to diffuse out of the bacterium. The cytoplasm wants to remain UNIQUE and thus any channel force changes in needed particle concentrations. EUKARYOTIC cells are large, with SMALLER surface area/ volume ratio, and thus channels are necessary. A CHLOROPLAST IS A CYANOBACTERIA. CHANNELS ARE CONSISTENT.

52. 52 THE TERM "CCM" "CCM" CO2 concentrating mechanisms. It is impossible to concentrate CO2, ONLY to transport faster to the cell. The diffusion rate is related to concentration of CO2 and to the speed of conduction of CO2 by the cell wall. There is no artificial concentrating mechanisms, only diffusion. THE PROTEIN MIGHT BE NOT A CHANNEL Since the "putative" protein is not necessarily a CO2 channel, which are not expected to be expressed in bacteria, expression in plant will not initiate any change. Plants don’t express the needed folding proteins for bacterial protein and thus the protein might be not functional. First the structure of the protein to BE crystallized and proved AS a CHANNEL. THEN, the protein has to be proved to be positioned in the chloroplast membrane. ERROR IN FIGURE : "External Ci" concentration. External = CO2R. There is NO Ci in cyanobacteria. Ci is concentration of CO2 in the leaf. Theoretically, the transporter wouldn't have influenced the concentration, only rate of acclimation to the CO2 change surrounding the cell. The external concentration of CO2 is large (mmol) and the photosynthesis is slow (micromoles) and therefore, after change in external CO2, there is acclimation during which the inner cell concentration becomes as the external concentration of CO2. The

53. 51 channel affects the length of the acclimation, during which, there would have been differences in photosynthesis rates between the acclimated and non acclimated bacteria. After acclimation, the rate of photosynthesis is alike.If the protein is not a channel, differences are expected even after the acclimation. The uptake is slow, and during uptake, the cell concentration Barely changes. The rate of diffusion of co2 is LARGE, therefore, the cell concentration is CONSTANT and similar to OUTER. If the acclimation time after change in external CO2 is long, there should be no difference between the mutants and the wt. Since in the mutant there is already full steady state photosynthesis (starting at 15mM HCO3 or 6 mM CO2), the rate of diffusion is BEYOND the scope of the limitation of photosynthesis. The real limiting factor of the mutant relative to wt is SOME PROTEIN NEEDED FOR PHOTOSYNTHETIC REACTIONS. The diffusion of CO2 is already at saturation, and all the cytoplasm is with concentration of CO2 similar to the external. Since, the mutants need more CO2 and not only more acclimation, the mutants are impaired in photosynthesis Proteins expression. LESS PROTEINS, LESS PHOTOSYNTHESIS. HIGHER CO2 FOR SILIMAR PHOTOSYNTHESIS. TIME BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENTS(CHART 2) WHAT WAS THE TIME BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS(AFTER ALTERATIONS IN EXTERNAL CO2)? In CASE of the protein as a CO2 channel, more

54. 54 acclimation, would result in similar PHOTOSYNTHESIS at similar [CO2]. At shorter times, there is still uneven [CO2] between the surroundings and the cytoplasm. More CO2 needed for faster diffusion and similar Photosynthesis. In case, time does not force any similarity of PHOTOSYNTHESIS of wt and the treatment, THE PROTEIN IS NOT A CHANNEL . "The protein encoded by ORF467 contains 10 putative transmembrane regions and is inner-membrane-located." WHERE IS THE PROOF? A PUTATIVE REGIONS WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER STUDIED PROTEINS ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROOF FOR PROTEIN FUNCTION. THE DATABASE ANALYSIS OF PROTEINS ARE MERELY A CLUE TO THE REAL PROTEIN FUNCTION AND NO CONCLUSIONS CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM ANY FORMAL SIMILARITY OF THE GENETIC CODE AND ANY KNOWN PROTEINS. THE MOTIFS ARE NOT PROOF BUT SPECULATIONS. REAL PROOF = CRYSTALLIZATION AND POSITIONING OF GFP FOLLOWING MICROSCOPY. Channels/ carriers NO ACTIVE CO2 CHANNELS ARE EXPECTED. THE OUTER CO2 is mmoles, and the photosynthesis is micromoles. THEREFORE, the DIFFUSION IS NOT ACTIVE. The "channels" are pipes which enhance membrane transport. The pipes are unspecific. The size of molecule is the only limiting factor. Large

55. 55 Surface area/ volume of bacteria, lead to the unnecessary existence of any channels in bacteria. CONCLUSIONS 1. The protein might be not a channel. 2. If there are channels in bacteria, there are also channels is chloroplast. 3. NO PROOF FOR FUNCTION 4. NO "CONCENTRATING MECHANISMS" EXIST 5. ACCLIMATION BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS UNMENTIONED. 6. NO PROOF FOR POSITIONING L-Data vs "CO2 Concentrating Mechanisms in Algae: Mechanisms, Environmental" Leonid Asipov CCM mechanisms are not likely. CO2 is high concentration in the air, relative to plant. Artificially to elevate concentration is an impossible mission with an inefficient nature. Why to artificially elevate the concentration of CO2 in the chloroplast? The chloroplast's nature sugar consumption produces more CO2, thus elevating the CO2 concentration near the chloroplast. The discussed CO2 may be the reason scientists thought that the chloroplast possesses CO2 concentrating mechanisms.

56. 56 The nature works with diffusion. It is impossible to artificially change concentrations opposite to the substance concentrations. Water, salt, CO2, sugar, all substances diffuse naturally in the plant and the plant adapts to certain concentration of the substances. The citated work does not prove existence of CCM, but states the CCM may exist. The science does not like science fiction. CO2 channeling. Channels are proteins which conduct particles according to the concentration gradient. The PIPES, are normal protein pipes. There are no transporters but PASSIVE, with GRADIENT. ENERGY IS MOVEMENT. MATTER DISSOLVING TO SMALLER PARTICLES ENLARGES HEAT CONDUCTANCE. THE DIFFUSION OF ONE SUBSTANCE IS BARELY RELATED TO THE OTHER. THE DIFFUSION IS RANDOM. THE DEPENDENCE IS ONLY AT HIGH CONCENTRATIONS, WHEN THE VOLUME IS A LIMITING FACTOR. THUS, NO ACTIVE TRANSPORTERS EXIST. REGULAR DIFFUSION ONLY. THE PLANT IS BUILDING THE ORAGNIZM WITH PARTICLES SUCH AS SUGAR, PROTEIN OR FAT, NO "ENERGY" EXIST IN MATTER. SOME REACTIVITY (HIGH HEAT CONDUCTANCE DUE TO SMALL PARTICLES) IS NEEDED FOR DISSIPATION OF SUBSTRATE FROM ENZYME OR TEMPORARY LIFE OF BIO SUBSTANCES, WHICH IS VITAL FOR NEW CELL REBUILDING. Transgenic protein enhances reactivity

57. 57 Leonid Asipov 30/12/2012 13:44:30 L-Data vs protein. The expressed transgenic protein elevates reactivity which is larger amount of smaller molecules causing elevation of heat conduction, thus temperature on sunlight. More transpiration and photosynthesis due to higher temperature only and also more breathing resulting more CO2 by product. This explains larger photosynthesis at smaller CO2 concentrations of the air. L-Data vs "Changes in the properties of reaction center II during the initial stages of photoinhibition as revealed by thermoluminescence measurements" Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 11:56:53 AM Leaves of plants exposed to intense light accumulate more light particles. At other temperatures, the particles will be depleted off the plant tissue. The switch of the band from higher temperature to 15% is due to more light particles accumulated in the leaf. Phosphorus is the main matter accumulating light and producing phosphorylation. The concentration of phosphorus is the main factor of phosphorylation, as measured by TL system. The TL is mainly a phosphorus meter. Additional light absorbing substances are also existent. A regular spectrophotometer can usually replace TL.

58. 58 Photo inhibition is due to destruction of plant leaves by excessive irradiation. The cure: shading. L-Data vs "Thermoluminescence and flash-induced oxygen yield in herbicide resistant mutants of the D1 protein in Synechococcus PCC7942" Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 11:59:01 AM L-Data vs Thermoluminescence and flash-induced oxygen yield in herbicide resistant mutants of the D1 protein in Synechococcus PCC7942 Leonid Asipov 25.10.2012 Mutants which are different in light absorption, will reveal a change in TL results. More LIGHT PARTICLES ABSORBED, less temperature of RELEASE. NEUTRAL TO LIGHT MUTANTS will lead to SIMILAR TL PATTERNS. PHOSPHORUS ABUDNANCE = MAIN STATIC REASON FOR FOLURUSCENCE AND ILLUMINESENCE OF PLANTS IN DARK.

59. 59 The C4 plants photosynthesis is not existant. Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 12:07:02 PM The C4 plants photosynthesis is not existent. ALL PLANTS ARE "C3", usual photosynthesis of a chloroplast. Chloroplasts are the photosynthetic bacteria. The bacteria are independent, and is not counting on bacteria in other plant cells. The theory of C4 plants is not consistent with the large rate of photosynthesis of C4 plants. If the "Dark" reactions and the "light" reactions are at different cells, which are at some distance, the diffusion of the "light" reaction products: C and H, would have slowed the photosynthesis by seriously. The C and H are results of light effect on CO2 and water. At short period of time, AN ENZYME has to bond the resulting molecules and create sugar. Otherwise, the C and H recreate CO2 and Water. Diffusion to other cells is not practical due to the needed large concentration for the diffusion. There are many types of cells and the diffusion is not especially conducted to the specific "dark" reaction cells. Rebinding of CO2 and water is likely, and therefore the rate of photosynthesis is expected to DECLINE. The explanation of the insensitivity to O2 of C4 plants is cell structure. Bigger cells with larger stomata and more cell breathing, which is O2 demanding. The "c4" plants, Are more energetically demanding, sugar demand is high, thus breathing, and thus less O2 is abundant. A strategy

60. 61 of plant which is rich in sugar. Sekoia wep Leonid Ldata 11/29/2011 4:23:11 PM = ‫דפוזיה‬ ‫מלבד‬ ‫עילוי‬ ‫כח‬ ‫שום‬ ‫אין‬ ‫כי‬ ‫עולים‬ ‫המים‬ : ‫גדולים‬ ‫עצים‬ ‫הריכוזים‬ ‫להבדלי‬ ‫בהתאם‬ ‫חלקיקים‬ ‫של‬ ‫אקראית‬ ‫תנועה‬ . ‫יותר‬ ‫גדול‬ ‫באוויר‬ ‫המים‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫כן‬ ‫אם‬ ‫אלא‬ ,‫ללחות‬ ‫חשיבות‬ ‫אין‬ . .‫בעלים‬ ‫חורים‬ ‫מלבד‬ ‫מים‬ ‫של‬ ‫להובלה‬ ‫מערכת‬ ‫שום‬ ‫אין‬ NOT N, possibly only water is reason for difference in weight of wheat Leonid ASIPOV 10/10/2012 3:00:42 PM "Near pipes there is more water and N. Weight of wheat is higher. The authors wrote N is causing the weight. WHY NOT IRRIGATION? The Ci parameter is WRONG Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 12:21:54 PM Mathematical function is set of points to compare at Y axis at similar X. The Ci parameter includes the photosynthesis. WHY TO INCLUDE TO X THE Y axis of the CI CURVE?

61. 61 The Ci curve is comparison of PHOTOSYNTHESIS VALUES AT DIFFEARENT Ci, When Ci includes already photosynthesis, resulting change in X values to different values. The X of the compared points is not same. COMPARISON IS WRONG. The calculation of Ci is artificial (not measured) calculation of a parameter similar to the measured parameter CO2R (External CO2). The true parameter which should be set to X axis is CO2R. CO2R is the manually or automatically changed parameter and as function of CO2R changes in photosynthesis and transpiration do happen in the plant leaf. The artificial parameter Ci, is a value close to CO2R, and based on Transpiration/ photosynthesis ratio, leaf temperature, and pressure. The artificial CO2 concentration is similar to CO2R, but less usually. The ERROR of Ci is that the CO2 concentration of the leaf is not related to STOMATA APERTURE. The diffusion of CO2 is barely limited by stomata. The only effect of stomata is on transpiration and Ci includes transpiration as function of the CO2 concentration in the leaf. Therefore, the Ci is artificial and wrong. See "DECOUPLING OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND TRANSPIRATION AFTER ALTERATIONS IN EXTERNAL CO2".

62. 62 ORANGE: IRRADIATION PURPLE: CO2 CONCENTRATION OF AIR GREEN: PHOTOSYNTHESIS BLUE: TRANSPIRATION Figure 1: DECOUPLING OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND TRANSPIRATION AFTER CHANGES IN CO2(Chart from Leonid Asipov MSc THESIS). The transpiration changes during a long time of 30 minutes or more after the change in CO2. Photosynthesis changes almost instantly(30 seconds), During the change in the transpiration rate, the photosynthesis does not change. During the period of change of the transpiration, Stomata change the aperture, process which does not affect the photosynthesis rate. The conclusion is that stomata mainly affect the transpiration rate due to differences in concentration

63. 61 between the leaf the air and slower speed of water diffusion (MORE LIQUID THAN CO2). CO2 diffusion is fast and almost not limited by stomata. The BEST parameter is the real parameter CO2R, presented with Transpiration or Photosynthesis on separate curves. Ci unclear results : no conclusions EXTERNAL CO2 VS PHOTO

64. 64 EXTERNAL CO2 VS TRANSPIRATION CONCLUSION : TRANSIRATION IS THE CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF CI , NOT PHOTO.

65. 65 L-Data vs “The Role of Tobacco Aquaporin1 in Improving Water Use Efficiency, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Yield Production Under Salt Stress1” Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 11:34:24 AM Rationale: Expression of an additional aquaporin improves water transport of the plant. Improvement of the water transport elevates the transpiration levels. The photosynthesis levels might elevate a little, however the main effect of stomata are on transpiration. Fig 1:

66. 66 1: light levels 2. CO2 concentration 3. Photosynthesis 4. Transpiration Gas exchange experiment in controlled environment. Tomato photosynthesis and Transpiration rates during changing CO2 concentrations. Result 1. Fast acclimation of photosynthesis to CO2 alterations and constant photosynthesis rate during the stomata aperture change. Conclusion 1. Stomata barely affect photosynthesis. 2. The negative effect of salt on photosynthesis is not result of stomata closure (which does not change the abundant CO2 concentration), but due to the direct effect of salt on the plant photosynthesizing enzymes. 3. Enhanced water transport may improve enzymatic rates ONLY at salt stress conditions. The more open stomata is due to the expressed aquaporin, and the result is enhanced transpiration. There is no more photosynthesis under normal salt conditions and thus, the stomata aperture is not relevant to the reason of why under salt stress there is a difference.

67. 67 Salt stress is effect of salt on plant enzymes in a way that photosynthesis declines. Better water transport is a solution to the problem. However, the high transpiration rates causes the solution to be too water demanding. Salt accumulation is another argument against the transgenic plants. The water use efficiency declines and the protein is not for commercialization. The reported WUE enhancement of the transgenic plants is absurd, Water use efficiency: Total dry plant to unit of water weight. Plant dry weight [kg] /WATER [kg] The transpiration rate is about 70 times faster (per mole water relative to mole CO2) than photosynthesis. In order to preserve constant WUE at elevation of 15% in transpiration levels, which is seen in the transgenic plants, photosynthesis has to be elevated 10 times (1000%) 70 + 15% of 70 = 80 photosynthesis units. The molar weight of water is 19 and the assimilation of a single C atom is only 6 gram/mole. The O2 is returned back to the air and thus, at single molar measurement of photosynthesis and transpiration additional 300% of the elevation in transpiration rate to be added to the photosynthesis rate in order to preserve constant WUE. 70 + 15% of 70 + 3* 15% of 70 = number of photosynthesis units needed for CONSTANT WUE = 42 times more photosynthesis needed to preserve constant WUE at 15 % more transpiration. The duration of transpiration is the whole day, while the photosynthesis is abundant only at day time. Therefore the total daily transpiration of the transgenic plants is

68. 68 elevated MUCH more than the total photosynthesis. The reports regarding the elevated WATER use efficiency of the transgenic plants are not logical. Every percent of elevation in transpiration levels is actually more than 300 times more water per unit of dry weight. The amount of CO2 molecules per single water is 70, meaning that elevation in transpiration is serious to WUE. For a single percent of added transpiration 300% of photosynthesis is needed to keep constant WUE, otherwise WUE declines. The cells which are full in water are larger in size, and thus the time CO2 diffuses is longer. The longer time of diffusion causes usually decline in photosynthesis rates in highly irrigated plants. The extent of photosynthesis addition of the transgenic plants is incomparable to the extent of used water. The improvement of 50% in photosynthesis is only in peak irradiation hours and salt stressed plants. To elevate WUE photosynthesis has to elevate 45 and not 2 times. NO ELEVATION IN WATER USE EFFICIENCY IS EVIDENT EVEN IN THE TOP LIGHT and SALT STRESS CONDITIONS, when the aquaporin is the most affecting the plant.

69. 69 During normal conditions the differences in photosynthesis are not large, however the difference in transpiration in steady on ~16% from wt. Note that the plant transpires all the day and not only at peak light hours. Inconsistency of the results measured by gas-exchange and whole plant scale measurement. Figure 3 presents larger transpiration rates to transgenic plants both at salt and normal irrigation. Figure 2 presents transpiration results of whole plant. The whole plant transpiration of transgenic plants is lower than WT. Aquaporins improve water transport, and thus more transpiration is expected. HOW THE AUTHOR EXPLAINS THE INCONSISTENCY? WHY IS PHOTOSYTHESIS ON NORMAL IRRIGATION IS NOT PRESENTED? The effect of the aquaporin is significant only when there is water deficit. At normal irrigation, the photosynthesis levels of Transgenic and wt plants should not differ significantly. The reason of the aquaporin effect on photosynthesis is that the photosynthesis is reduced by high salt concentration during salt stress. Moreover, the transgenic plants transpire more water and thus get faster to drought stress. The addition of the aquaporin enhances water transport, which is positively affecting photosynthesis only at salt stress conditions, when the salt levels start to block enzymatic processes. CONSTANT LIGHT DURING THE GAS-EXCHANGE EXPERIMENT The light during the experiment was artificial and constant. The reason for high transpiration at noon hours is

70. 71 temperature not irradiation. Due to the artificial light, the photosynthesis was elevated during the whole measurement period (morning=>noon), which would have not been expected with natural light, which is at PEAK only few hours a day. When light is less intense, differences in photosynthesis rates are smaller. The LIGHT levels was 1200uE which is stronger intensity relative to real conditions. The light was TOO high in order to intensify the photosynthesis rates of plants and enhance the effect of the aquaporin on salt stress. LESS LIGHT would have declined the TOTAL photosynthesis and thus WUE would have been declined. TOO HIGH :LIGHT is UNHONEST EXPERIMENT. The real light is lower, not only to the top leaves but to the rest of the plant. Most of the plant is at much lower light levels (~200uE). The differences in photosynthesis rates due to better water transport during salt stress would have declined to ~5-10 % at maximum relative to the reported 50%. Note that the transpiration of the transgenic plants is elevated at all conditions to more than 15%. At real conditions, the light levels are much lower, regarding the fact that at morning and evening hours the light is very low intensity. However, transpiration levels are related to temperature and are not maximum, since the temperature of the air is related to the real irradiation.

71. 71 CONSTANT LIGHT DURING EXPERIMENT IS A FRAUD. THE TEMPERATURE OF THE AIR ALTERS TRANSPIRATION, BUT PHOTOSYNTHESIS IS KEPT MUCH MORE CONSTANT DUE TO CONSTANT LIGHT. THE PHOTOSYNTHESIS CURVE WAS NOT PRESENTED MOST POSSIBLY DUE TO CONSTANT LIGHT WHICH DOES NOT CORRELATE TO THE CHANGING TRANSPIRATION. NATURAL LIGHT DID NOT AFFECT PHOTOSYNTHESIS, ONLY TRANSPIRATION. Fig 5: Typical irradiation levels in a greenhouse with natural light. UPPER LEAVES. Rest of the plant, LESS than the following. Average irradiation of morning: 450-500 uE

72. 72 Average irradiation of Noon : 750uE The reported experiment : constant 1200uE from morning to evening. The publisher enhances photosynthesis, which is enhanced by the aquaporin at SALT STRESS. At real light conditions there is less photosynthesis due to lower light levels. The transpiration levels, however are kept according to the air temperature and are influenced by the changing irradiation levels. The real light is HOT, and the artificial light is cold. 1200uE of SUNLIGHT would have elevated transpiration significantly. 1200uE of artificial light, is constant, from morning to noon and transpiration is related to air temperature affecting on the whole plant. The effect of irradiation on transpiration is reduced due to the cold artificial light of the measurement chamber. The researcher accents photosynthesis and tries to hide transpiration. In order to report POSITIVE WUE of transgenic plants. HOWEVER TO IMPROVE WUE, photosynthesis has to rise by 45 times of the elevation of transpiration, during the whole day

73. 71 Period due to mass differences of water and Carbon and molar differences of transpiration and photosynthesis. The SALT STRESS EXPERIMENT Salt ACCUMULATION in plant force plants to grow BAD on water with high salinity. The more plants transpire, faster the accumulation of salt, and therefore the plants live shorter lives until the plant death. Growth and fruit count declines. The transgenic plants are more sensitive to salt on the longer run due to salt accumulation. The addition of salt during the experiment is not a good model for NATURAL field conditions. The fields which absorb too much salt for plant growth should be replaced with new soil. Drought stress is the real experiment to test new genetically engineered plants. The drought stress is predicted to be a failure for the transgenic plants carrying the aquaporin which causes more transpiration and thus the plants get stressed before the wt plants. Elevated transpiration of the transgenic plants DECLINE WUE causing drought sensitive plants or LARGER WATER DEMAND. The improvement of photosynthesis is ONLY at SALT STRESS CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT REAL. BETTER SOLUTION THAN GENETIC ENGINEERING IS REPLACING THE SOIL. Conclusions 1. WUE of the transgenic plants to decline since the differences in photosynthesis rates are not high enough relative to differences in transpiration.

74. 74 2. The transpiration of the whole plant is inconsistent with transpiration of a single leaf (ERROR IN FIGURE?). 3. The effect of stomata aperture on photosynthesis is small. The effect of the aquaporin enhances the photosynthesis mainly at salt stress conditions, when enzymes has not optimal concentration of solutes. Better water transport elevate photosynthesis. The transpiration is mostly related to stomata aperture. The effect of the water on photosynthesis is not related to stomata, otherwise we would expect similar or smaller effect on photosynthesis. 4. The transgenic plants are salt stress sensitive due to salt accumulation. 5. The transgenic plants are drought stress sensitive due to higher transpiration rates. 6. The LIGHT levels during the gas-exchange experiment was constant, larger and colder than natural light. The fact enhances photosynthesis, while transpiration is reduced. SUNLIGHT is hot irradiation which enhances transpiration. The elevation of transpiration during the day is due to temperature changes in the greenhouse. The constant light is UNHONEST SCIENCE, since the air temperature was not kept constant (SEEN AS UNCONSTANT TRANSPIRATION LEVELS). L-Data © www.ldata.org.il L-Data vs "SYNERGISM OF LIGHT AND FUSICOCCIN ON STOMATAL OPENING"

75. 75 Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 12:03:31 PM Figure 1. Stomatal opening in FC or KCI. How possible that higher concentration of KCL open the stomata and not closing? High concentration, water exits the stomata and the stomata closes. 2. Why to couple 2 effects: solute concentration and light? Light causes photosynthesis and thus decline in CO2 concentration. When CO2 concentration is below threshold of stomata opening, the stomata start to open. Solute concentration is effect unrelated to light. Cactuses create sugar during the day Leonid Ldata 9/8/2011 3:39:39 PM Cactuses create sugars from CO2 and water. During the night, all the gas exchange takes place. The stomata open, the O2 from the day irradiation diffuses to the air and CO2 diffuses to the plant. The plant structure is low

76. 76 surface area/volume ratio and accumulates large amount of CO2 and O2. At the morning stomata close and irradiation start creating O, H and C from H2O and CO2. The O2 and CO2 are accumulated in the plant leaves. The sugar is enzymatically formed during the day, while the basic components are created. As soon as stomata are opened during the night, gas exchange takes place. CO2 diffuses to the plant, where CO2 concentration is low. O2 diffuses to the air. Without irradiation, the basic components are becoming back to CO2 and H2O. During the night only gas exchange takes place.

77. 77 ‫למידת‬ ‫קורלטיבי‬ ‫המדד‬ .‫הקקטוס‬ ‫דרך‬ ‫מתח‬ ‫מדידת‬ :‫הניסוי‬ .‫הסוכרים‬ Sugar production=day Development (Hebrew) Plant Apical Dominance Model L-Data 5/15/2010 12:22:39 PM ‫בצמח‬ ‫קודקודי‬ ‫שלטון‬ ‫של‬ ‫מודל‬ ‫ל‬ ,‫אסיפוב‬ ‫לאוניד‬ - ‫דאטה‬

78. 78 ‫המודל‬ ‫הנחות‬ ‫גדיל‬ ‫תהליכי‬ ‫על‬ ‫בקרה‬ .‫א‬ ‫הורמונלית‬ ‫היא‬ ‫ה‬ ‫וחד‬ ‫פעילה‬ ‫בצורה‬ ‫ונאים‬ ‫ובעלים‬ ‫במרוסטמות‬ ‫נוצרים‬ ‫ההורמונים‬ .‫ב‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫פירוק‬ ‫מתבצע‬ ‫שם‬ ,‫השורש‬ ‫בכיוון‬ ‫מהמריסטמה‬ ‫כיוונית‬ . ‫בריכוזו‬ ‫הפוך‬ ‫ביחס‬ ‫תלוי‬ ‫במריסטמה‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫יצירת‬ ‫קצב‬ .‫ג‬ ‫זמינה‬ ‫לאנרגייה‬ ‫הופכת‬ ‫הקרינה‬ ‫בעוצמת‬ ‫תלוייה‬ ‫השמש‬ ‫אנרגית‬ .‫ד‬ ‫ומתפזר‬ ‫בעלים‬ ‫הריכוזים‬ ‫מפל‬ ‫לפי‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫בתוך‬ ‫ת‬ . ‫מהיווצרו‬ ‫קבועה‬ ‫זמן‬ ‫תקופת‬ ‫לאחר‬ ‫פעיל‬ ‫לא‬ ‫להיות‬ ‫הופך‬ ‫ההורמון‬ .‫ה‬ ‫ובמריסטמות‬ ‫בעלים‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫בריכוז‬ ‫תלוי‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫זרימת‬ ‫קצב‬ .‫ו‬ . ‫באנרגייה‬ ‫תלוי‬ ‫ובמריסטמות‬ ‫בעלים‬ ‫לצימוח‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫ניצול‬ ‫קצב‬ .‫ז‬ ‫המקום‬ ‫באותו‬ ‫הפעיל‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫ובריכוז‬ ‫הזמינה‬ .

79. 79 ‫באיור‬ ‫פעיל‬ ‫הורמון‬ : ‫בהיר‬ ‫צבע‬ ‫פעיל‬ ‫בלתי‬ ‫הורמון‬ : ‫כהה‬ ‫צבע‬ ‫תוצאות‬ ‫גורמת‬ ‫השורש‬ ‫לכיוון‬ ‫מהעלים‬ ‫הורמון‬ ‫של‬ ‫כיוונית‬ ‫וחד‬ ‫רציפה‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫לכך‬ ‫ש‬ .‫בצמח‬ ‫היחסי‬ ‫בגובה‬ ‫עלייה‬ ‫עם‬ ‫עולה‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫של‬ ‫הזרימה‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫של‬ ‫יצירה‬ ‫מאפשרת‬ ‫העליונים‬ ‫בעלים‬ ‫יותר‬ ‫מהירה‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫גבוה‬ ‫בקצב‬ ‫הפעיל‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫ריכוז‬ .‫ביצירתו‬ ‫העיכוב‬ ‫הקטנת‬ ‫ע"י‬ ,‫יותר‬ ‫של‬ ‫גבוה‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫יש‬ ‫העלים‬ ‫שבניצני‬ ‫כך‬ ,‫בלבד‬ ‫היווצרו‬ ‫למקומות‬ ‫קרוב‬ ‫יצירת‬ ‫את‬ ‫ומעכב‬ ‫אנרגייה‬ ‫של‬ ‫ניצול‬ ‫משפעל‬ ‫שאינו‬ ‫פעיל‬ ‫בלתי‬ ‫הורמון‬

80. 81 ‫עלייה‬ ‫עם‬ ‫עולה‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫ע"י‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫ניצול‬ ‫יכולת‬ .‫הפעיל‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫ונמ‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫היחסי‬ ‫בגובה‬ ‫הענפים‬ ‫בניצני‬ ‫וכה‬ . ‫הזמינה‬ ‫באנרגייה‬ ‫תלוי‬ ‫קצבו‬ ,‫פעיל‬ ‫באופן‬ ‫מתבצעת‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫זרימת‬ ‫מהירה‬ ‫הזרימה‬ ‫כך‬ ,‫הזמינה‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫שעולה‬ ‫ככל‬ .‫המקום‬ ‫באותו‬ ,‫כאלה‬ ‫בתנאיים‬ .‫הקודקודי‬ ‫השלטון‬ ‫של‬ ‫ההשפעה‬ ‫מתמעטת‬ ‫וכך‬ ‫יותר‬ ‫הענפים‬ ‫מניצני‬ ‫לצמוח‬ ‫יכול‬ ‫הצמח‬ . ‫להו‬ ‫יכול‬ ‫בשורש‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫פירוק‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫על‬ ‫השורש‬ ‫של‬ ‫שליטה‬ ‫ות‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫הצמיחה‬ . ‫דיון‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫שליטה‬ ‫להוות‬ ‫יכולה‬ ‫פעילה‬ ‫הורמונלית‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫של‬ ‫מערכת‬ ‫על‬ ‫ידי‬ ‫ריכוז‬ .‫הצמח‬ ‫אברי‬ ‫בין‬ ‫לצימוח‬ ‫אנרגייה‬ ‫של‬ ‫מקוטבת‬ ‫חלוקה‬ ‫השולט‬ ‫הגורם‬ ‫להוות‬ ‫יכול‬ ‫הזמינה‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫על‬ ‫המנגנון‬ ‫עוצמת‬ ‫שיורד‬ ‫המקוטב‬ ‫הזמי‬ ‫באנרגייה‬ ‫עלייה‬ ‫עם‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫נה‬ . ‫מנוצלת‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫רוב‬ ,‫נמוך‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫הזמינה‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫שבו‬ ‫במצב‬ ‫השורש‬ ‫שליטת‬ .‫הענפים‬ ‫ניצני‬ ‫של‬ ‫במריסטמות‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫העליונים‬ ‫בענפים‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫על‬ ‫שליטה‬ ‫בעזרת‬ ‫להיתממש‬ ‫יכולה‬ ,‫הצמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫הצמיחה‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫על‬ ‫בעלים‬ ‫פעיל‬ ‫הבלתי‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫של‬ ‫רוויה‬ ‫שיוצר‬ ‫ההורמון‬ ‫של‬ ‫הפירוק‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ובענפים‬ ‫ייצורו‬ ‫המשך‬ ‫את‬ ‫מעכב‬ ‫כך‬ . ‫גרפיות‬ ‫שיטות‬ ‫ל‬ ‫חברת‬ ‫של‬ ‫גרפית‬ ‫סימולציה‬ ‫במערכת‬ ‫נבנתה‬ ‫הסימולציה‬ - ,‫דאטה‬ ‫ממערכת‬ ‫חלק‬ ‫בקרוב‬ ‫שתהיה‬ Data-Lightning Plant Development Strategy ‫קודקודי‬ ‫שלטון‬ .‫עילאיים‬ ‫בצמחים‬ ‫עלים‬ ‫נשירת‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫עלי‬ ‫כל‬ ‫צימוח‬ ‫אנרגיית‬ ‫של‬ ‫אנרגטי‬ ‫כמבקר‬ ‫לאו‬ ‫מחוברים‬ ‫אנ‬ ‫מערכת‬ ‫תה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫אותה‬ ‫לראות‬ ‫שניתן‬ ‫גטית‬ .‫לצימוח‬ ‫המנוצלת‬ ‫אנרגייה‬ ‫כמאגר‬ ‫במנגנון‬ ‫ומבוקר‬ ‫שוויוני‬ ‫איננו‬ ‫המאגר‬ ‫של‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫ניצול‬ ‫אפקטיביים‬ ‫בכיוונים‬ ‫צימוח‬ ‫שיוצר‬ ‫קודקודית‬ ‫שליטה‬ ‫של‬ ‫מהמאגר‬ ‫לא‬ ‫היא‬ ‫עצמו‬ ‫העלה‬ ‫לחיי‬ ‫הנדרשת‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫שלע‬ ‫מהאנרגייה‬ ‫חלק‬ ‫אלא‬ ‫לצימוח‬ ‫שנועד‬ ‫הכללי‬ ‫לה‬ ‫מספיק‬ ‫יוצרים‬ ‫לא‬ ‫אפקטיביים‬ ‫לא‬ ‫עלים‬ .‫בעצמו‬ ‫יוצר‬

81. 81 ‫באנרגייה‬ ‫ממחסור‬ ‫נושרים‬ ‫וכך‬ , ‫עצמו‬ ‫העלה‬ ‫לחיי‬ ‫אנרגייה‬ . ‫ל‬ - ‫דאטה‬ 1122 ‫שמורות‬ ‫הזכויות‬ ‫כל‬ There is no main growth control in plant : transpiration is related to nutrient transport Leonid Asipov 8/28/2011 9:41:40 AM

82. 82 ‫של‬ ‫מדפוזיה‬ ‫נובעת‬ ‫שרואים‬ ‫התופעה‬ .‫בצמח‬ ‫קודקודי‬ ‫שלטון‬ ‫אין‬ ‫שמבצעים‬ ‫בצמח‬ ‫לעלים‬ )‫חלבונים‬ ,‫(פחמימות‬ ‫בנייה‬ ‫חומרי‬ ‫טרנספירציה‬ ‫גם‬ ‫ולכן‬ ‫פוטוסינטזה‬ . ‫של‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫יש‬ ‫טרנספירציה‬ ‫כשיש‬ ‫המים‬ ‫של‬ ‫הריכוזים‬ ‫מפל‬ ‫עם‬ ‫תמידית‬ ‫מים‬ . ‫את‬ ‫מורידה‬ ‫טרנספירציה‬ ‫המ‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ולכ‬ ‫מסים‬ ‫לעלה‬ ‫מים‬ ‫של‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫יש‬ ‫ן‬ . ‫אין‬ ‫ולכן‬ ‫טרנספירציה‬ ‫ללא‬ ‫נמצאים‬ ‫פוטוסינטזה‬ ‫מבצעים‬ ‫שלא‬ ‫עלים‬ ‫הסוכרים‬ ‫ואספקת‬ ‫הסוכרים‬ ‫נגמרים‬ ‫לאט‬ ‫לאט‬ .‫לעלה‬ ‫מים‬ ‫של‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫מדי‬ ‫איטית‬ . ‫נושרים‬ ‫בחושך‬ ‫ושנמצאים‬ ‫פוטוסינטזה‬ ‫ללא‬ ‫העלים‬ ‫אספקה‬ ‫מהעדר‬ . ‫ח‬ ‫צמחים‬ ‫ד‬ ‫סוכרי‬ ‫עודף‬ .‫סוכרים‬ ‫מעודף‬ ‫נובלים‬ ‫שנתיים‬ ‫גור‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫למוות‬ ‫מהתייבשות‬ ‫מת‬ ‫והצמח‬ ‫גבוהה‬ ‫מאוסמולריות‬ ‫תאים‬ ‫של‬ . ‫ייצירת‬ ‫הם‬ ‫צמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫חיים‬ ‫תחילת‬ ‫עלים‬ ‫השקעה‬ ‫שעולה‬ ‫וגדילה‬ ‫בעתיד‬ ‫משתלמת‬ ‫אבל‬ ‫אנרגטית‬ . ‫העלה‬ ‫כי‬ ‫לגדילה‬ ‫אספקה‬ ‫מקבלים‬ ‫באור‬ ‫שנהנצאים‬ ‫וענפים‬ ‫עלים‬ ‫רק‬ ‫משותפים‬ ‫ממשאבים‬ ‫הגדילה‬ ,‫לגדול‬ ‫מנת‬ ‫על‬ ‫מספיק‬ ‫מייצר‬ ‫לא‬ ‫עצמו‬ ‫של‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫כל‬ . ‫עלים‬ / ‫הענפים‬ ‫כל‬ ‫אנרגייה‬ ‫של‬ ‫גבוה‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫כשיש‬ ‫הפחמימות‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫את‬ ‫לווסת‬ ‫מנת‬ ‫על‬ ‫לגדול‬ ‫רוצים‬ . .‫פירות‬ ‫גידול‬ ‫מתחיל‬ ,‫מסויים‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫מעל‬ ‫גדל‬ ‫הפחמימות‬ ‫שריכוז‬ ‫בשלב‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫מנ‬ ‫על‬ ‫בפירות‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫את‬ ‫משקיע‬ ‫מומסים‬ ‫ריכוז‬ ‫על‬ ‫לשמור‬ ‫ת‬ ‫שפירות‬ ‫בסוף‬ .‫לסף‬ ‫מעבר‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫קבוע‬ - ‫גדו‬ ‫אחרת‬ ‫אפשרות‬ ‫אין‬ ‫לים‬ ‫לסף‬ ‫מעבר‬ ‫עולה‬ ‫בצמח‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ ‫וריכוז‬ ‫אנרגטית‬ ‫להשקעה‬ ‫לצמח‬ ‫הצמח‬ ‫והתיישבושת‬ ‫תאים‬ ‫של‬ ‫למוות‬ ‫שגורם‬ ‫מה‬ ‫המקסימלי‬ . ‫מקבלים‬ ‫העליונים‬ ‫והענפים‬ ‫שהעלים‬ ‫בכך‬ ‫מתבטא‬ ‫הקודקודי‬ ‫השלטון‬ ‫ה‬ ‫אנרגיית‬ ‫את‬ ‫צ‬ ‫נו‬ ‫הדבר‬ .‫ימוח‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ה‬ ‫שהם‬ ‫מכך‬ ‫ע‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ומבצעים‬ ‫באור‬ ‫מצאים‬ ‫טרנספירציה‬ . ‫טרנ‬ ‫ולכן‬ ‫המים‬ ‫בפוטנציאל‬ ‫ירידה‬ ‫גורמת‬ ‫ספירציה‬ ‫של‬ ‫נוספת‬ ‫תופעה‬ .‫לצימוח‬ ‫שטובים‬ ‫והחלבונים‬ ‫הסוכרים‬ ‫לאספקת‬ ‫קודקודי‬ ‫שלטון‬ - ‫הציד‬ ‫גידול‬ ‫ה‬ ‫קשורה‬ ‫התופעה‬ .‫קודקוד‬ ‫אין‬ ‫אם‬ ‫ראשית‬ ‫מריסטמה‬ ‫להעדר‬ - ‫מנוצלת‬ ‫האנרגייה‬ .‫צימוח‬ ‫אפשרות‬ ‫אין‬ ‫אחרות‬ ‫במריסטמות‬ . ‫פ‬ ‫צריך‬ ‫כך‬ ,‫אנרגייה‬ ‫יותר‬ ‫שיש‬ ‫ככל‬ ‫חות‬ ‫אספקה‬ ‫לקבלת‬ ‫טרנספירציה‬ , ‫באנרגייה‬ ‫שעשיר‬ ‫צמח‬ ‫של‬ ‫במצב‬ ‫כך‬ - ‫הצידה‬ ‫גם‬ ‫היא‬ ‫הגדילה‬ .

83. 81 Stomata Stomata : CO2 Triggers wep Leonid Ldata 1/23/2012 12:50:11 PM Introduction In this article we’ll show the relation between CO2 concentration in the air and the physiological parameters, photosynthesis and transpiration. We’ve measured the

84. 84 stomata aperture at different CO2 concentrations and came to interesting and conclusions regarding the possible trigger for induction of changes in the stomata aperture. Responses of photosynthesis and transpiration to changes in CO2 concentration Elevation in CO2 concentration in the plant surrounding air causes decrease in transpiration rate and increase in the rate of carbon fixation. Decrease in CO2 concentration, causes an exactly opposite effect. Figure 1: Effect of changes in CO2 concentration on photosynthesis and transpiration of Arabidopsis

85. 85 CO2 concentration has an effect on the transpiration rate in light and in darkness (Figure 2), which suggests that stomata reaction (which causes the changes in leaf conductance to water) to CO2 is light independent. Although in the light, the reaction is stronger. Figure 2: Effect of changes in CO2 concentration on the transpiration rate of Solanum lycopersicum in light and darkness. We’ve photographed stomata of Arabidopsis at different CO2 concentrations of the air (figure 3). At 650 uL L-1 CO2 the stomata appear to be more closed than at 80 uL L-1. This data suggest that CO2 may be the trigger for changes in the stomata aperture.

86. 86 Figure 3: Stomata of Arabidopsis at 650 (left) and 80 (right) uL L-1 CO2. What is the effect of light on transpiration and why in the light, the response of the stomata is stronger than in darkness (figure 2)? It is stronger in light conditions because there is more transpiration in light conditions, thus the effect of stomata is elevated per unit of transpiration.

87. 87 Moreover that during the light period, the concentration of CO2 in the leaf surroundings and the intercellular space is lower than darkness due to photosynthesis. If CO2 concentration is the trigger, we would expect stronger responses of stomata in light than in darkness. The stomata would be more open and thus the transpiration rate. Can the concentration in the intercellular space be the trigger for stomata induction? In the following experiment (figure 4), transpiration, photosynthesis and intercellular CO2 concentration was measured during plants awakening from a period of darkness. We can see that up-regulation in the transpiration rate happens not immediately with the light turning on (like the photosynthesis), but after a period of time close to 20 minutes. During this period, the intercellular concentration gets below a certain threshold. This experiment was performed in low light levels of 20 µE.

88. 88 Figure 4: Photosynthesis, transpiration and intercellular CO2 concentration during plants awakening in low light (28uE). Similar experiment was conducted in higher light levels of 300 µE. As we would have expected in the case that a decline in the intercellular CO2 causes the stomata response, at higher photosynthesis levels the delay between the light turning on and transpiration response should be shorter. This is exactly what we see in the results (figure 5), the delay was shortened from 19 to 7 minutes.

89. 89 Figure 5: Photosynthesis, transpiration and intercellular CO2 concentration during plants awakening in high light (300 µE). According to these experiments, intercellular CO2 concentration can be the trigger for the stomata aperture induction. Further research, however, showed that it is most likely not the intercellular but the concentration of CO2 in the close surroundings of the guard cells, and it is needed to relate to the gradient of CO2 from the stomatal pore to the mesophyll cells which perform the carbon fixation. The problem with Ci (intercellular CO2) concentration parameter is that it does not consider the gradient of CO2 between the stomatal pore and the photosynthesizing mesophyll cells. The traditional Ci parameter conveys to all the intercellular space the same concentration, which is

90. 91 not accurate, since the concentration of CO2 obviously has a gradient between the stomatal pore and the photosynthesizing mesophyl cells (figure 6). Figure 6: The CO2 gradient in the intercellular space In the following experiment we’ve measured photosynthesis, transpiration and intercellular [CO2] during stepwise elevation and decrease in the [CO2] in the leaf surroundings (figure 7).

91. 91 Figure 7: The effect of stepwise CO2 concentration changes on photosynthesis, transpiration and intercellular CO2 concentration. We see that after the elevation in CO2 concentration, there is a decrease in the transpiration rate and intercellular [CO2]. High CO2 levels cause stomata closure, and due to high photosynthesis rate, the intercellular space becomes less loaded with CO2. Despite the decrease in Ci to very low levels, the stomata continue to be closed, against our previous expectations (figures 4 and 5). Please notice that the previous two experiments were conducted at 400 uL L-1 CO2 and in the one shown in figure 7, the high CO2 point of this experiment was 600 uL L-1. At lower CO2 levels of 400 uL L-1, the gradient between the [CO2] of the surroundings is less sharp than at 600 uL L-1, and thus at 400 uL L-1, Ci may represent more closely the [CO2] near the guard cells. When the gradient is more sharp, the Ci parameter represents less the [CO2] concentration near the guard cells, which is closer to the [CO2] outside. The

92. 92 stomata do not respond due to relatively high levels of [CO2] near the guard cells. Stoma aperture Leonid Asipov 6/3/2011 9:56:19 AM ‫השיווי‬ ‫קבוע‬ ‫ואת‬ ‫המים‬ ‫תעלות‬ ‫מוליכות‬ ‫את‬ ‫משנה‬ ‫חמצני‬ ‫דו‬ ‫פחמן‬ ‫בממברנה‬ ‫המים‬ ‫מעבר‬ ‫של‬ ‫משקל‬ . ‫מים‬ ‫לחץ‬ ‫עקב‬ ‫נפתחות‬ ‫הפיוניות‬ ‫השמירה‬ ‫בתאי‬ . ‫הפ‬ ‫בריכוז‬ ‫תלויי‬ )‫המוליכות‬ ‫(סף‬ ‫הפיוניות‬ ‫של‬ ‫המוליכות‬ ‫ח‬ ‫הדו‬ ‫מן‬ ‫חמצני‬ . ‫בין‬ ‫המים‬ ‫לפותנציאל‬ ‫קשורה‬ ‫ממברנה‬ ‫דרך‬ ‫שתעבור‬ ‫המים‬ ‫כמות‬ ‫סך‬ ‫צדדי‬ ‫שני‬ ‫הממברנה‬ ‫מוליכות‬ ‫את‬ ‫שמשנה‬ ‫חמצני‬ ‫הדו‬ ‫הפחמן‬ ‫בריכוז‬ ‫נוספת‬ ‫ותלות‬ ‫הממברנה‬ ‫זרימה‬ ‫של‬ ‫האקטיבציה‬ ‫אנרגיית‬ ‫את‬ ‫אלא‬ ‫הזרימה‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫את‬ ‫רק‬ ‫לא‬ ‫שזורמים‬ ‫המים‬ ‫סך‬ ‫את‬ ‫שמשנה‬ ‫הממברנה‬ ‫דרך‬ . ‫חמצני‬ ‫דו‬ ‫פחמן‬ ‫לכך‬ ‫עד‬ ‫המים‬ ‫תעלות‬ ‫את‬ ‫משנה‬ ‫של‬ ‫משקל‬ ‫השיווי‬ ‫קבוע‬ ‫שמשתנה‬ ‫המע‬ ‫קצב‬ ‫רק‬ ‫המים(לא‬ ‫זרימת‬ ‫בר‬ ) . ‫הדו‬ ‫הפחמן‬ ‫וריכוז‬ ‫המים‬ ‫בפותנציאל‬ ‫תלויי‬ ‫הפיוניות‬ ‫גודל‬ - ‫חמצני‬ .

93. 91 CO2 and Stomata Leonid Asipov 11/15/2012 12:31:17 PM The reason for the effect of CO2 on stomata aperture is blocking of H2O near the plant cytoplasm. If CO2 is with more concentration from outside, more chances are that water molecules are diffusing from the cytoplasm to the outer cell. If the concentration Is higher in the cytoplasm, CO2 molecules are blocking near the cytoplasm membrane and more molecules are diffusing from outside to the cytoplasm. More CO2=> The stomata aperture declines Less CO2=> Stomata aperture rises. The CO2 is affecting the stomata without or with light. Stomata do not affect photosynthesis, only transpiration

94. 94 Leonid Ldata 9/11/2011 6:44:12 PM The stomata does not affect photosynthesis, only transpiration. Stomata aperture at any state does not block photosynthesis, only transpiration. CO2 diffusion takes place in similar rates despite stomata aperture. The proof is photosynthesis rates at different water irrigation levels. Watering plants does not elevate photosynthesis, but elevates transpiration. Watering usually causes lower photosynthesis because longer time is needed for CO2 to diffuse to the leaf. The next argument is the uncoupling of photosynthesis and transpiration to CO2 changes. Photosynthesis changes almost instantly (10-30 seconds) and transpiration response is slow. Presuming, either the stomata open or close fast as photosynthesis response, or photosynthesis is not affected by stomata aperture. Since transpiration is very affected by stomata, and photosynthesis is not, most possibly CO2 diffusion is fast and is not affected by mechanical differences in stomata aperture.

95. 95 CO2 is trigger for stomata opening without any biology wep Leonid Ldata 2/21/2012 10:00:06 AM

96. 96 Stomatal response to CO2 Leonid Asipov 8/28/2011 10:34:57 AM Stomata respond to CO2 As soon as the CO2 reach the stomata / other cell surroundings the osmolarity rises and water exits the cell. The cells are mechanical structures which open/close the stomatal pore according to the pressure in the cell. High pressure / the stomata is open, low pressure- the stomata is closed. When the concentration of CO2 lowers, water enters the cell, and the stomata opens. The water pores are static and have no function else than to be pores. The cells lose water after CO2 elevation. To block the phenomenon

97. 97 there is structure which called stomata, which after water transport to outside make a pore to close. Lower concentrations of CO2 make the water enter the cell and thus open the stomata. CO2 is reactive molecule and affect the solute concentration. The stomata is acting as water sensor. Low water- the stomata is closed. CO2 makes water to exit the cells. Water The Role of the Difference Between Plasma and Vacuole Membranes Water Conducting Properties : A Model Approach

98. 98 Leonid Asipov 8/31/2009 7:50:21 PM The model imitates cell submerged in a solution. As the outer osmolarity changes, water flux is created, until osmolarity in all the compartments reach equilibrium. During this process, the submerged cell changes it’s volume. The ratio in the volume between the cytoplasm and the vacuole may change as well. We’ll introduce a constant representing membrane’s maximum water conductance properties per unit of time (PP—Physical Permeability). The water conducting properties of the both membranes (PP), affect the maximum rate of water flux between the cell compartments and the surroundings. As experiments show, the difference in the PP of the Vacuole membrane can get 100 or more times larger than the Cytoplasm membrane.

99. 99 What is the functional logic of such difference ? To answer that, we’ll simulate cell swelling and monitor the osmolarity inside the cell compartments, at different possible values of PP. Vacuole PP = 1 Cytoplasm PP = 1(Click to see the movie clip) Vacuole PP = 10 Cytoplasm PP = 1 (Click to see the movie clip)

100. 111 The results of both simulations are presented in the following chart.

PlantsBook.pdf

PlantsBook.pdf

PlantsBook.pdf

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a PlantsBook.pdf

Similar a PlantsBook.pdf(20)

Más de Leonid Ledata

Más de Leonid Ledata(20)

Último

Último(16)

PlantsBook.pdf