“…First, the aeeutnulation of meta-Rb, for the pool of phytochrotne controlling shade avoidatiee responses, may be much lower than the high values predicted by means of in vivo spectrophototnetry (e.g. Kendrick et al [1985] estimated that more than 50% of P would be present as intertnediates at sunlight fluence rates) or by measuring the amount of Pfr available for destruction (Smith, Jackson & Whitelam, 1988), This could be accounted for by the existence of a different environment surrounding the relevant pool of phytochrome (Spruit, 1982;Kendrick et al, 1985), or by the possibility that photoconversion intermediates do not accutnulate at high lluence rates in the form of phytochrome that predominates in light-grown plants (this matter is addressed below). Secondly, plants may tneasure Pfr/(Pr-|-Pfr) or Pfr/Pr, A third alternative is that plants may measure [Pfr] or Pfr/P, but at high fiuence rates the responses caused by a reduction in the values of these parameters are compensated by responses of opposite direction dependent on fluence rate (Casal & Alvarez, 1988;Casal, 1989;Casal & Smith, 1989b), Similar flueticerate-dependent responses are well-documented in etiolated seedlings (Moht-, 1972) but the picture is far from clear for de-etiolated seedlings.…”