Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 288–292 | Cite as

Photoinhibition in cork-oak leaves under stress: influence of the bark-stripping on the chlorophyll fluorescence emission inQuercus suber L.

  • Christiane Werner
  • Otília Correia
Original Article

Abstract

Quercus suber is the primary source for industrial cork and becomes bark-stripped every 9–10 years. Recurring cork extraction is a major stress factor and the large water loss from the stripped trunk surface may affect the water balance and tree productivity. To evaluate the effect of bark-stripping, fluorescence emission and stomatal conductance of leaves were determined in groups of bark-stripped and control trees. Fv/Fm ratio was found to be significantly lower in bark-stripped trees indicating a reduced photosynthetic efficiency of PSII. Photosynthesis was not found to be stomata limited. The reduction in Fv/Fm resulted from a decline in maximum and variable fluorescence while the initial fluorescence of the dark-adapted state (Fo) remained constant. A general decline in photosynthetic efficiency of PSII was found in all trees during the summer, probably reflecting the prolonged environmental stresses during a hot and dry season. Additional stress caused by the bark-stripping seems to enhance the susceptibility to photoinhibition of the trees.

Key words

Bark-stripping Fluorescence emission Quercus suber L. Water relations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Björkman O, Demmig B (1987) Photon yield of O2 evolution and Chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77K among vascular plants of diverse origins. Planta 170: 489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björkman O, Powles SB (1984) Inhibition of photosynthetic reactions under water stress: interaction with light level. Planta 161: 490–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford KJ, Hsiao TC (1982) Physiological responses to moderate water stress. In: Lange OL, Nobel PL, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encyclopaedia of plant physiology, NS. Water relations and carbon assimilation, vol. 12 B Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 263–324Google Scholar
  4. Correia OA, Oliveira G, Martins-Loução MA, Catarino FM (1992) Effects of bark-stripping on the water relations ofQuercus suber L. Sci Gerund 18: 195–205Google Scholar
  5. Demmig-Adams B, Adams III WW (1992) Photoprotection and other responses of plants to high light stress. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 43: 599–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demmig B, Björkman O (1987) Comparison of the effect of excessive light on chlorophyll fluorescence (77K) and photon yield of O2 evolution in leaves of higher plants. Planta 171: 171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Havaux M (1994) Temperature-dependent modulation of the photo-inhibition-sensitivity of photosystem II inSolanum tuberosum leaves. Plant Cell Physiol 35: 757–766Google Scholar
  8. Jefferies RA (1994) Drought and chlorophyll fluorescence in field grown potato (Solanum tuberosum). Physiol Plant 90: 93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krause GH, Weis E (1991) Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 42: 313–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Long SP, Humphries S, Falkowski PG (1994) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 45: 633–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lovelock CE, Jebb M, Osmond CB (1994) Photoinhibition and recovery in tropical plant species: response to disturbance. Oecologia 97: 297–307Google Scholar
  12. Ögren E, Öquist G (1985) Effects of the drought on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and photoinhibition susceptibility in intact willow leaves. Planta 166: 380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oliveira G, Correia OA, Martins-Loução MA, Catarino FM (1992) Water relations of cork-oak (Quercus suber L.) under natural conditions. Vegetatio 99–100: 199–208Google Scholar
  14. Öquist G, Wass R (1988) A portable, microprocessor operated instrument for measuring chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics in stress physiology. Physiol Plant 73: 211–217Google Scholar
  15. Öquist G, Anderson JM, McCaffery S, Chow WS (1992) Mechanistic differences in photoinhibition of sun and shade plants. Planta 188: 422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Powles SB (1984) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis induced by visible light. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 35: 15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schreiber U, Bilger W (1987) Rapid assessment of stress effects on plant leaves by chlorophyll fluorescence measurements. In: Tenhunen S et al (ed) Plant response to stress. NATO ASI Series G15: 17–53Google Scholar
  18. Smillie RM, Hetherington SE, He J, Nott R (1988) Photoinhibition at chilling temperatures. Aust J Plant Physiol 15: 207–222Google Scholar
  19. Werner C (1995) Water relations and photosynthesis on cork-oak (Quercus suber L.), with special reference to the effects of barkstripping — a field study in Portugal. Master thesis, KölnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Werner
    • 1
  • Otília Correia
    • 2
  1. 1.Botanisches Institut der Universität KölnKölnGermany
  2. 2.Departamento de Biologia VegetalFaculdade de Ciências de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations