These observations support the findings of

Cascio et al. (2010) who found that one of the most important differences between ChlF transient in the sun and the shade leaf is a higher relative variable fluorescence at 30 ms (V I). The final I–P part of the fast ChlF transient (and the related ψRE1o) reflects the rate of reduction of ferredoxin (Schansker et al. 2003, 2005) and it is taken as a measure of relative abundance of PSI with respect to PSII (Desotgiu et al. 2010; Cascio et al. 2010; Bussotti et al. 2011). For a complete discussion on the J to P phase, see Stirbet VX-689 manufacturer and Govindjee (2012). On the other hand, a limitation can also be caused by other components of electron transport between PSII and end PSI acceptors. Many

studies have shown that Cyt b6/f may www.selleckchem.com/products/ca-4948.html be the site of the rate-limiting step in the electron transport (Stiehl and Witt 1969; Haehnel 1984; Heber et al. 1988; Eichelmann et al. 2000). Golding and Johnson (2003) have described regulation of electron transport through Cytb6/f; they documented this phenomenon by measurement of the PSI reaction center absorbance change, measured at 700 nm (P700). The rate limitation in the electron transport may be examined through the relationship between the redox poise of PSII electron acceptors and the ETR (Rosenqvist 2001), as shown Sitaxentan in Fig. 3. The value of (1-qP) representing the approximate redox state of QA, i.e., the Q A − /QA (total) (Schreiber and Bilger 1987; Weis et al. 1987) or excitation pressure (Ögren and Rosenqvist 1992), as used by Rosenqvist (2001), increased with light intensity. Similarly, the ETR was expected to grow in direct proportion to excitation pressure. However, while

the relationship between the value of excitation pressure and ETR in sun leaves show an almost linear and a steep increase, we observed only a slight increase due to very low ETR, even at HL (ETR and qP values are shown in Fig. 1), in the shade leaves. This supports the conclusion from fast ChlF kinetics, which indicates a severe limitation in the electron transport of the shade barley leaves compared to the sun barley leaves. Rosenqvist (2001) has presented similar differences in the sun and the shade leaves of Chrysanthemum, Hibiscus, and Spathiphyllum. Fig. 3 Relation of the calculated electron transport rate (ETR) and the approximate redox state of QA (1-qP), where the qP represents the coefficient of photochemical quenching. Chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters were derived from the rapid light curves (see Fig. 1) Consistent with the above results, a Tideglusib chemical structure substantial difference between ETR/(1-qP) ratio was found between light-adapted sun and shade barley leaves during photoinhibitory treatment (data not shown here).