4.3 Article

Fluorescence imaging of light acclimation of brazilian atlantic forest tree species

期刊

PHOTOSYNTHETICA
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 95-108

出版社

ACAD SCIENCES CZECH REPUBLIC, INST EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
DOI: 10.1007/s11099-012-0018-6

关键词

chlorophyll fluorescence; light stress; photochemical efficiency; thermal dissipation; xanthophyll cycle

资金

  1. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior)
  2. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)
  3. FAPEMIG (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the pursuit of knowledge on the biological behavior of Brazilian Atlantic Forest tree species, this study evaluated the susceptibility of the light-demanding species, Schinus terebinthifolia Raddi., Pseudobombax grandiflorum (Cav.) A. Robyns and Joannesia princeps Vell., and of the shade-tolerant species, Hymenaea courbaril L. var. stilbocarpa and Lecythis pisonis Camb, to photoinhibition and acclimation capacity. These species were first cultivated under two irradiance conditions, I-20 (20% direct sunlight radiation) and I-100 (all-sky or direct sunlight) and then transferred from I-20 to I-100. The effects of the sudden increase in light radiation intensity on photosynthetic activity were then evaluated through chlorophyll (Chl) fluorescence imaging, HPLC xanthophylls analysis, and cell membrane lipid peroxidation measurements. Light-demanding species were found to present a higher photochemical efficiency and higher acclimation capacity under high light irradiance than shade-tolerant species. The higher photoinhibition tolerance observed in light-demanding species was associated to their higher capacity for photochemical dissipation and dissipation of excess excitation energy via the xanthophyll cycle, leading to a lower ROS generation. The obtained results suggested that a knowledge of acclimation capacity, by means of Chl fluorescence imaging yields, is a useful indicator of species successional grouping.

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

4.3
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