4.4 Article

Evidence for leaf fold to remedy the deficiency of physiological photoprotection for photosystem II

期刊

PHOTOSYNTHESIS RESEARCH
卷 110, 期 3, 页码 185-191

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11120-011-9717-2

关键词

Cyclic electron flow; Non-photochemical quenching; Photosystem II; Photoinhibition; Photoprotection; Leaf movement

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30900174, 30770226]
  2. Key Laboratory of National Forestry Bureau for Fast-growing Tree Breeding and Cultivation in Central South China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An interesting phenomenon is that some light-demanding plants fold their leaves when exposed to high light. Since high light could induce selective photodamage to photosystem II (PSII), we suggest that the leaves fold themselves to diminish the absorption of light energy and remedy the deficiency of physiological photoprotection for PSII. To test this hypothesis, we determined light responses of non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) and cyclic electron flow (CEF) and the effect of high light on PSII activity in Microcos paniculata (non-foldable species) and Bauhinia tenuiflora (foldable species). Under high light B. tenuiflora showed much lower NPQ and CEF than M. paniculata. Meanwhile, the excess light energy that cannot be harmlessly dissipated in B. tenuiflora was more compared with that in M. paniculata. After exposure to a high light of 1,900 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1) for 2 h, the maximum quantum yield of PSII, as estimated by variable to maximal fluorescence (F (v) /F (m)) decreased from 0.7 to 0.52 in the foldable species B. tenuiflora but was stable at 0.7 in the nonfoldable species M. paniculata. These results indicate that the foldable species B. tenuiflora has more sensitivity of PSII to high light stress than the nonfoldable species M. paniculata, partly as a result of less CEF and NPQ in B. tenuiflora. Our results suggest that sun leaves fold themselves under high light to remedy the deficiency of physiological photoprotection for PSII.

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

4.4
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