4.6 Article

Photosynthetic recovery and acclimation to excess light intensity in the rehydrated lichen soil crusts

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172537

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31300100, 31300322, 31670456]
  2. Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS [2017385]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As an important successional stage and main type of biological soil crusts (BSCs) in Shapotou region of China (southeastern edge of Tengger Desert), lichen soil crusts (LSCs) often suffer from many stresses, such as desiccation and excess light intensity. In this study, the chlorophyll fluorescence and CO2 exchange in the rehydrated LSCs were detected under a series of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) gradients to study the photosynthetic acclimation of LSCs. The results showed that although desiccation leaded to the loss of photosynthetic activity in LSCs, the fluorescence parameters including Fo, Fv and Fv/Fm of LSCs could be well recovered after rehydration. After the recovery of photosynthetic activity, the effective photosynthetic efficiency phi(PSII) detected by Imaging PAM had declined to nearly 0 within both the lichen thallus upper and lower layers when the PAR increased to 200 mu E m(-2) s(-1), however the net photosynthesis detected by the CO2 gas analyzer in the LSCs still appeared when the PAR increased to 1000 mu E m(-2) s(-1). Our results indicate that LSCs acclimating to high PAR, on the one hand is ascribed to the special structure in crust lichens, making the incident light into the lichen thallus be weakened; on the other hand the massive accumulation of photosynthetic pigments in LSCs also provides a protective barrier for the photosynthetic organisms against radiation damage. Furthermore, the excessive light energy absorbed by crust lichens is also possibly dissipated by the increasing non-photochemical quenching, therefore to some extent providing some protection for LSCs.

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

4.6
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