2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.11.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Photoinhibition of photosystems I and II induced by exposure to high light intensity during oat plant growth

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
42
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
3
42
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…(Mittler 2002). These species of oxygen are highly cytotoxic and can seriously react with vital biomolecules such as lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, and other macromolecules causing lipid peroxidation, protein denaturation and DNA mutation (Quiles & López 2004). The membranes are considered the first place of abiotic stress responses, which lead to cell and organelle injuries (Candan & Tarhan 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Mittler 2002). These species of oxygen are highly cytotoxic and can seriously react with vital biomolecules such as lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, and other macromolecules causing lipid peroxidation, protein denaturation and DNA mutation (Quiles & López 2004). The membranes are considered the first place of abiotic stress responses, which lead to cell and organelle injuries (Candan & Tarhan 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Photoinhibition is defined as the inhibition of photosynthesis due to excess light. When leaves are exposed to more light than they are able to use, the excess light energy absorbed can direct produce species reactive to oxygen and provoke damage in the photosynthetic mechanism (Quiles & López, 2004). A plant's PS II quantum efficiency can also be reduced by photoinhibition when exposed to excess light energy (Krause & Weis, 1991) -the net result of the whole complex of cellular interactions and leaf level processes (Demmig-Adams & Adams, 1992;Björkman & Demmig-Adams, 1994).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This technique permits us to compare, by means of imagines, the variation in these processes and to study any damage caused in the same leaf as time progresses. Usually, changes in F v /F m of leaves adapted to dark, which represents the maximal quantum yield of PS II (Krause & Weis, 1991), are used as an indicator of the functional state of the photosynthetic apparatus (Barbagallo et al, 2003;Krause & Jahns, 2004;Oxborough, 2004b), since this parameter, which has a value of between 0.70 and 0.85 in unstressed leaves, falls under the influence of adverse factors (Ehlert & Hincha, 2008;Havaux & Lannoye, 1985;Joshi & Mohantly, 2004;Quiles & López, 2004;Teicher et al, 2000). Sun plants (C. morifolium) and shade plants (S. wallisii) were exposed to photoperiods with low watering, high illumination and heat.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, not all fluorescence parameters are suitable for the early detection of plant stress. Usually, changes in the maximum quantum yield of PS II are used as an indicator of the functional state of the photosynthetic apparatus (Barbagallo et al, 2003;Oxborough, 2004b), since this parameter, which has a value between 0.70 and 0.85 in unstressed leaves, falls under the influence of adverse factors (Ehlert & Hincha, 2008;Havaux & Lannoye, 1985;Joshi & Mohantly, 2004;Quiles & López, 2004;Teicher et al, 2000). However, in the present paper we show that in both sun (Chrysanthemum morifolium) and shade (Spathiphyllum wallisii) plants exposed to drought, high illumination and heat and showing no visible damage, the images of the maximal quantum yield of PS II (F v /F m ) in dark-adapted leaves vary little from those in control plants, and, in all cases, the values are quite normal (above 0.74).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%