| Literature DB >> 19379526 |
Zheng-He Lin1, Li-Song Chen, Rong-Bing Chen, Fang-Zhou Zhang, Huan-Xin Jiang, Ning Tang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the effects of P deficiency on tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) growth, P uptake and utilization as well as leaf gas exchange and Chl a fluorescence have been investigated, very little is known about the effects of P deficiency on photosynthetic electron transport, photosynthetic enzymes and carbohydrates of tea leaves. In this study, own-rooted 10-month-old tea trees were supplied three times weekly for 17 weeks with 500 mL of nutrient solution at a P concentration of 0, 40, 80, 160, 400 or 1000 microM. This objective of this study was to determine how P deficiency affects CO2 assimilation, Rubisco, carbohydrates and photosynthetic electron transport in tea leaves to understand the mechanism by which P deficiency leads to a decrease in CO2 assimilation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19379526 PMCID: PMC2685392 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-9-43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Effects of phosphorus (P) supply on leaf P content (A), root dry weight (B), shoot dry weight (C) and root/shoot dry weight ratio (D) of tea trees. Each point is mean ± standard error (n = 5 or 6). Regression equations: (A) y = 361.3948 – 308.8565 e-0.0039(r2 = 0.9690, P = 0.0055). Different letters above or below standard error bars indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 2Specific leaf weight (A), Chl content and Chl a/b ratio (B), carotenoid (Car) content and Car/Chl ratio (C), total soluble protein and N contents (D) in relation to P content in tea leaves. Each point is mean ± standard error for the leaf P content (horizontal, n = 6) and the dependent variable (vertical, n = 5 or 6). Different letters above or below standard error bars indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 3CO. Each point is mean ± standard error for the leaf P content (horizontal, n = 6) and the dependent variable (vertical, n = 5). Different letters above standard error bars indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 4Initial ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) activity (A), total Rubisco activity (B), and Rubisco activation state (C) in relation to P content in tea leaves. Each point is mean ± standard error for the leaf P content (horizontal, n = 6) and the dependent variable (vertical, n = 5). Different letters above or below standard error bars indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 5Glucose (Glu, A and E), fructose (Fru, B and F), sucrose (Suc, C and G), and starch (D and H) contents expressed on an area (A-E) or DW (F-J) basis in relation to P content in tea leaves. Each point is mean ± standard error for the leaf P content (horizontal, n = 6) and the dependent variable (vertical, n = 6). Different letters above standard error bars indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 6Effects of P supply on the average Chl a fluorescence (OJIP) transients (average of 7 – 15 samples, A) and the different expressions of relative variable fluorescence: (B) between F[71] in dark-adapted tea leaves.
Figure 7Seventeen fluorescence parameters derived by the JIP-test from the average OJIP transients of Fig. 6A in relation to P content in tea leaves. All the values were expressed relative to the sample treated with 1000 μM P set as 1. Maximum amplitude of IP phase = (Fm - Fo)/(FI - Fo) - 1 [71].
Figure 8Maximum amplitude of IP phase (A), PI. All the values were expressed relative to the sample treated with 1000 μM P set as 1. Regression equations: (A) y = 0.5070 + 0.5208 × (r2 = 0.9556, P = 0.0007); (B) y = -11.9070 + 12.9149 x0.0503 (y2 = 0.9951, P = 0.0003); (C) y = -0.1650 + 1.2127 × (y2 = 0.9839, P < 0.0001).
Summary of parameters, formulae and their description using data extracted from chlorophyll a fluorescence (OJIP) transient.
| Fluorescence parameters | Description |
| Fluorescence parameters | Description |
| Ft | Fluorescence intensity at time t after onset of actinic illumination |
| F50 μsor F20 μs | Minimum reliable recorded fluorescence at 50 μs with the PEA- or 20 μs with Handy-PEA-fluorimeter |
| F100 μs and F300 μs | Fluorescence intensity at 100 and 300 μs, respectively |
| FJ and FI | Fluorescence intensity at the J-step (2 ms) and the I-step (30 ms), respectively |
| FP (= Fm) | Maximum recorded (= maximum possible) fluorescence at P-step |
| Area | Total complementary area between fluorescence induction curve and F = Fm |
| Derived parameters | |
| Selected OJIP parameters | |
| F0 ≅ F50 μsor F0 ≅ F20 μs | Minimum fluorescence, when all PSII RCs are open |
| Fm = FP | Maximum fluorescence, when all PSII RCs are closed |
| VJ = (F2 ms - Fo)/(Fm - Fo) | Relative variable fluorescence at the J-step (2 ms) |
| VI = (F30 ms - Fo)/(Fm - Fo) | Relative variable fluorescence at the I-step (30 ms) |
| Mo = 4 (F300 μs - Fo)/(Fm - Fo) | Approximated initial slope (in ms-1) of the fluorescence transient V = f(t) |
| Sm = ECo/RC = Area/(Fm - Fo) | Normalized total complementary area above the OJIP (reflecting multiple-turnover QA reduction events) or total electron carriers per RC |
| Yields or flux ratios | |
| φPo = TRo/ABS = 1-(Fo/Fm) = Fv/Fm | Maximum quantum yield of primary photochemistry at t = 0 |
| φEo = ETo/ABS = (Fv/Fm) × (1 - VJ) | Quantum yield for electron transport at t = 0 |
| ψEo = ETo/TRo = 1-VJ | Probability (at time 0) that a trapped exciton moves an electron into the electron transport chain beyond QA- |
| φDo = DIo/ABS = 1-φPo = Fo/Fm | Quantum yield at t = 0 for energy dissipation |
| δRo = REo/ETo = (1 - VI)/( - VJ) | Efficiency with which an electron can move from the reduced intersystem electron acceptors to the PSI end electron acceptors |
| φRo = REo/ABS = φPo × ψEo× δRo φ | Quantum yield for the reduction of end acceptors of PSI per photon absorbed |
| Specific fluxes or activities expressed per reaction center (RC) | |
| ETo/RC = (Mo/VJ) × ψEo = (Mo/VJ) × (1-VJ) | Electron transport flux per RC at t = 0 |
| DIo/RC = (ABS/RC) - (TRo/RC) | Dissipated energy flux per RC at t = 0 |
| REo/RC = (REo/ETo) × (ETo/RC) | Reduction of end acceptors at PSI electron acceptor side per RC at t = 0 |
| ETo/CSo = (ABS/CSo) × φEo | Electron transport flux per CS at t = 0 |
| TRo/CSo = (ABS/CSo) × φPo | Trapped energy flux per CS at t = 0 |
| DIo/CSo = (ABS/CSo) - (TRo/CSo) | Dissipated energy flux per CS at t = 0 |
| REo/CSo = (REo/ETo) × (ETo/CSo) | Reduction of end acceptors at PSI electron acceptor side per CS at t = 0 |
| Density of RCs | |
| RC/CSo =φPo × (ABS/CSo) × (VJ/Mo) | Amount of active PSII RCs per CS at t = 0 |
| Performance index | |
| PIabs = (RC/ABS) × (φPo/(1 - φPo)) × (ψo/(1 - ψo)) | Performance index (PI) on absorption basis |
| PItot, abs = (RC/ABS) × (φPo/(1-φPo)) × (ψEo/(1 - ψEo)) × (δRo/(1 - δRo)) | Total PI, measuring the performance up to the PSI end electron acceptors |