There are differences between these kinetic parameters In low li

There are differences between these kinetic parameters. In low light-adapted S and R leaves, F o, excitation rate k L, basic proton conductance k Hthyl, and the fraction of QB-nonreducing centers β were substantially

higher in the R-type. The parameter of QA − oxidation, k AB, was lower in the R biotype which is in agreement with many other reports (e.g., Jansen and Pfister 1990). It causes a slower re-oxidation of the acceptor side of PSII resulting in a higher fluorescence emission in the 1–2 ms click here time region (J-level). A higher fraction of QB-nonreducing centers in R plants has been reported earlier (van Rensen and Vredenberg 2009). The higher excitation rate k L agrees with the reported shape-type chloroplasts of the resistant plants (having more light harvesting chlorophyll connected with PSII) (Vaughn and Duke 1984; van Rensen and Curwiel 2000). The higher basic proton conduction k Hthyl is in accordance PCI-32765 purchase with the finding by Rashid and van Rensen (1987) that the thylakoids of the R chloroplasts utilize the pH gradient less efficiently for photophosphorylation than the thylakoids of the wild-type (S) plants. Comparing the parameters of Selleck Baf-A1 leaves pre-conditioned at high (HL) or low (LL) light intensity, it appears that after HL pre-conditioning, the QA − oxidation, k AB, and the basic proton conductance, k Hthyl,

were higher. F o, normalized variable fluorescence, nF v, and the steepness of the IP rise, N IP, were lower after HL pre-conditioning. Pre-conditioning at HL, leads to photoinhibition of the plants and degradation of the D1 protein (e.g., Carr and Björk 2007). Apparently, damage to the D1 protein

causes an increase of the rate of electron transport between QA and QB. The higher proton conductance k Hthyl.(Table 1) is probably due to damage to the thylakoid membranes caused by photoinhibition leading to proton leakage. The lower value of nF v indicates a lower photochemical acetylcholine quenching and consequently a lower primary photochemical efficiency of PSII in the HL pre-conditioned plants. The lower steepness of the IP rise, N IP, maybe related to a slower increase of a pH gradient, caused by a higher proton conductance in the HL plants. Comparisons of the curves analyzed at different linear time scales (Fig. 4 for Canola S-type leaves, and Fig. 5 for R-type ones) allow the following conclusions on the effect of LL and HL on each of the individual components of variable fluorescence. The release of primary photochemical quenching F PP (Eq. 1, left hand figures) governs variable fluorescence in time range up to 2 ms; that of photoelectrochemical quenching F PE(Eq. 2, middle figures) predominates in the range between 2 and 50 ms; and that ascribed to photoelectric stimulation FCET (Eq. 3, right hand figures) is responsible for the changes in the 20–300 ms range. After photoinhibition (HL pre-conditioning) the plants showed less release of photochemical quenching, probably due to damaged D1 protein. The middle figures of Figs.

Comments are closed.