4.5 Article

Rate of O2 production derived from pulse-amplitude-modulated fluorescence:: Testing three biooptical approaches against measured O2-production rate

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 803-813

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2008.00509.x

关键词

biooptics; ch1 a fluorescence; PAM; photosynthetic oxygen production; PSII-scaled fluorescence excitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Light absorption by phytoplankton is both species specific and affected by photoacclimational status. To estimate oxygenic photosynthesis from pulse-amplitude-modulated (PAM) fluorescence, the amount of quanta absorbed by PSII needs to be quantified. We present here three different biooptical approaches to estimate the fraction of light absorbed by PSII: (1) the factor 0.5, which implies that absorbed light is equally distributed among PSI and PSII; (2) the fraction of ch1 a in PSII, determined as the ratio between the scaled red-peak fluorescence excitation and the red absorption peak; and (3) the measure of light absorbed by PSII, determined from the scaling of the fluorescence excitation spectra to the absorption spectra by the no-overshoot procedure. Three marine phytoplankton species were used as test organisms: Prorocentrum minimum (Pavill.) J. Schiller (Dinophyceae), Prymnesium parvum cf. patelliferum (J. C. Green, D. J. Hibberd et Pienaar) A. Larsen (Haptophyceae), and Phaeodactylum tricornutum Bohlin (Bacillariophyceae). Photosynthesis versus irradiance (P vs. E) parameters calculated using the three approaches were compared with P versus E parameters obtained from simultaneously measured rates of oxygen production. Generally, approach 1 underestimated, while approach 2 overestimated the gross O-2-production rate calculated from PAM fluorescence. Approach 3, in principle the best approach to estimate quanta absorbed by PSII, was also superior according to observations. Hence, we recommend approach 3 for estimation of gross O-2-production rates based on PAM fluorescence measurements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据