Chlorophyll a Fluorescence in Aquatic Sciences: Methods and Applications 2010
DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9268-7_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fluorescence as a Tool to Understand Changes in Photosynthetic Electron Flow Regulation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 117 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, the complete loss of F V / F M by the inhibitor CCCP was expected (Fig. 3a, b), as it dissociates electron transport from ATP synthesis and impedes the establishment of a pH gradient across the thylakoid membrane (Ralph et al 2010). Consequently, CCCP also strongly inhibited 14 C incorporation in +Fe and +DFB cells (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Similarly, the complete loss of F V / F M by the inhibitor CCCP was expected (Fig. 3a, b), as it dissociates electron transport from ATP synthesis and impedes the establishment of a pH gradient across the thylakoid membrane (Ralph et al 2010). Consequently, CCCP also strongly inhibited 14 C incorporation in +Fe and +DFB cells (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…These measurements represent (F m ' − F ')/F m ', which is the ratio of maximal fluorescence range to the background minimum fluorescence level, or, in other words, the maximal PSII photochemical efficiency in actinic light. The fluorometer measures light energy that is re-emitted from chlorophyll a (chl a) that is not used for charge separation, heat dissipation or resonance (Cosgrove & Borowitzka 2010, Ralph et al 2010. Field measurements are said to be measured at 'steady state', meaning fluorescence was measured after cells had photoregulated to the ambient light, whereas laboratory experiments measured 'dark-adapted' fluorescence (Huot & Babin 2010).…”
Section: Field Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early efforts to reconcile conventional CO 2 uptake rates with FRRf-derived CO 2 uptake attributed FRRf "overestimates" to use of a constant K C value (i.e., 4 or 5 mol e − (mol C) −1 ) (Kromkamp et al, 2008;Mino et al, 2014), in particular under excess irradiance (Ralph et al, 2010). Subsequent studies demonstrated that miss-matches between CO 2 uptake rates and FRRf were largely due to K C variability, which in turn could be explained (predicted) from co-variability with key environmental factors known to regulate PP, i.e., light, temperature and/or inorganic nutrient availability (Lawrenz et al, 2013;Hughes et al, 2018b;Ryan-Keogh et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%