4.4 Article

Development of a standardized methodology for quantifying total chlorophyll and carotenoids from foliage of hardwood and conifer tree species

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 849-861

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/X09-015

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the availability of several protocols for the extraction of chlorophylls and carotenoids from foliage of forest trees, information regarding their respective extraction efficiencies is scarce. We compared the efficiencies of acetone, ethanol, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and N, N-dimethylformamide (DMF) over a range of incubation times for the extraction of chlorophylls and carotenoids using small amounts of unmacerated tissue. Of the 11 species studied, comparable amounts of chlorophyll were extracted by all four solvents from three species and by ethanol and DMF from nine species. In four species, acetone, ethanol, and DMF extracted comparable chlorophyll amounts, while in another two species comparable amounts were extracted by ethanol, DMSO, and DMF. In one species, ethanol extracted significantly greater amounts of chlorophyll compared with all other solvents. The brown coloration of DMSO extracts for some species compromised the calculations of chlorophylls and carotenoids, making DMSO a poor choice. Overall, extraction efficiencies of ethanol and DMF were comparable for analyzing chlorophyll concentrations. However, because DMF is more toxic than ethanol, we recommend ethanol as the better option of these two for chlorophyll extractions. On the other hand, DMF is the most efficient solvent among the four tested for the extraction of carotenoids from these species. The results presented will facilitate the design of multispecies local- and regional-scale ecological studies to evaluate forest health. Additionally, they will enable reliable comparisons of results from multiple laboratories and (or) studies that used different solvents and help validate chlorophyll estimates obtained by remote sensing.

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