Understory plants in tropical forests often experience a low-light environment combined with high CO2 concentration. We hypothesized that the high CO2 concentration may compensate for leaf carbon loss caused by the low light, through increasing light-use efficiency of both steady-state and dynamic photosynthetic properties. To test the hypothesis, we examined CO2 gas exchange in response to an artificial lightfleck in Dipterocarpus sublamellatus Foxw. seedlings under contrasting CO2 conditions: 350 and 700 μmol CO2 mol(-1) air in a tropical rain forest, Pasoh, Malaysia. Total photosynthetic carbon gain from the lightfleck was about double when subjected to the high CO2 when compared with the low CO2 concentration. The increase of light-use efficiency in dynamic photosynthesis contributed 7% of the increased carbon gain, most of which was due to reduction of photosynthetic induction to light increase under the high CO2. The light compensation point of photosynthesis decreased by 58% and the apparent quantum yield increased by 26% at the high CO2 compared with those at the low CO2. The study suggests that high CO2 increases photosynthetic light-use efficiency under both steady-state and fluctuating light conditions, which should be considered in assessing the leaf carbon gain of understory plants in low-light environments.
A recently published study analyzed the phylogenetic relationship between the genera Centrodinium and Alexandrium, confirming an earlier publication showing the genus Alexandrium as paraphyletic. This most recent manuscript retained the genus Alexandrium, introduced a new genus Episemicolon, resurrected two genera, Gessnerium and Protogonyaulax, and stated that: "The polyphyly [sic] of Alexandrium is solved with the split into four genera". However, these reintroduced taxa were not based on monophyletic groups. Therefore this work, if accepted, would result in replacing a single paraphyletic taxon with several non-monophyletic ones. The morphological data presented for genus characterization also do not convincingly support taxa delimitations. The combination of weak molecular phylogenetics and the lack of diagnostic traits (i.e., autapomorphies) render the applicability of the concept of limited use. The proposal to split the genus Alexandrium on the basis of our current knowledge is rejected herein. The aim here is not to present an alternative analysis and revision, but to maintain Alexandrium. A better constructed and more phylogenetically accurate revision can and should wait until more complete evidence becomes available and there is a strong reason to revise the genus Alexandrium. The reasons are explained in detail by a review of the available molecular and morphological data for species of the genera Alexandrium and Centrodinium. In addition, cyst morphology and chemotaxonomy are discussed, and the need for integrative taxonomy is highlighted.