Photosynthesis Research

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 85–95 | Cite as

The low-light reduction in the quantum yield of photosynthesis: potential errors and biases when calculating the maximum quantum yield


Photosynthesis-irradiance (P-E) curves are widely used to describe photosynthetic efficiency and potential. Contemporary models assume maximal photosynthetic quantum yield (φ) at low irradiances. But P-E observations made with both oxygen evolution and carbon uptake techniques show that this is not always the case. Using new and published data in conjunction with modeling exercises, we demonstrate that regardless of the mechanism there can be reductions in φ at low irradiances that are not readily observable using conventional P-E analyses. We also show that analytical errors, such as inaccurate estimation of dark oxygen consumption or carbon uptake, can markedly affect the structure of φ-E curves with negligible effect on P-E curve structure. Whether from respiration `corrections' or other mechanisms, these deviations in φ at low light levels from the maximum quantum yield of photosynthesis (φmax) can lead to significant errors (> 50%) in the estimation of the linear portion of the P-E curve and ultimately φmax. Non-linear models of P-E, such as the rectangular hyperbola, quadratic, exponential and hyperbolic tangent that are commonly used to estimate the initial slope (α) of the P-E curve assume that φ is maximal at low light levels and therefore can err in the estimation of φmax when φ is reduced at low light levels. Using a diverse data set of 622 P-E curves with a total of 7623 points, we show that although model skills are high (r2 = 0.96 ± 0.05, 0.97 ± 0.04, 0.97 ± 0.04 and 0.97 ± 0.04, respectively), a large fraction of the model-predicted φmax differ by greater than 10% from true φmax values (91%, 50%, 82% and 46%, respectively). Data from these observations and modeling exercises lead us to suggest that φmax be determined by directly estimating the true maximum of a φ-E curve rather than using the more conventional methodology employing the initial slope of the P-E curve.

Emerson enhancement models P-E P-I photosynthetic quantum yield quantum efficiency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker NR (1996) Photosynthesis and the Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackman FF (1905) Optima and limiting factors. Ann Bot 14: 281–295Google Scholar
  3. Cullen JJ, Yang X and MacIntyre HL (1992) Nutrient limitation and marine photosynthesis. In: Falkowski P G and Woodhead AD (eds) Primary Productivity and Biogeochemical Cycles in the Sea, pp 69–88. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Diner B and Mauzerall D (1973) Feedback controlling oxygen production in a cross-reaction between two photosystems in photosynthesis. Biochim Biophys Acta 305: 329–352Google Scholar
  5. Falkowski P and Raven J (1997) Aquatic Photosynthesis. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbush B, Kok B and McGloin M (1971) Cooperation of charges in photosynthetic O2 evolution – II. Damping of flash yield oscillation, deactivation. Photochem Photobiol 14: 307–321Google Scholar
  7. Frenette JJ, Demers S, Legendre L and Dodson J (1993) Lack of agreement among models for estimating the photosynthetic parameters. Limnol Oceanogr 38: 679–687Google Scholar
  8. Geider RJ and Osborne BA (1992) Algal Photosynthesis: the Measurement of Algal Gas Exchange Current Phycology 2. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Healy F and Myers J (1971) The Kok effect in Chlamydomonas reinhardi. Plant Physiol 47: 373–379Google Scholar
  10. Henley WJ (1993) Measurement and interpretation of photosynthetic light-response curves in algae in the context of photoinhibition and diel changes. J Phycol 29: 729–739Google Scholar
  11. Herbert SL, Han T, Vogelmann TC (2000) New applications of photoacoustics to the study of photosynthesis. Photosynth Res 66: 13–31Google Scholar
  12. Jassby AD and Platt T (1976) Mathematical formulation of the relationship between photosynthesis and light for phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 21: 540–547Google Scholar
  13. Johnson Z (2000) Regulation of marine photosynthetic efficiency by Photosystem II. PhD thesis, Duke University, Durham, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson Z, Barber R, Marra J, Bidigare R, Goericke R and Trees C (2002) Photosynthesis physiology and forcing in the Arabian Sea. Deep Sea Res I 49: 415–436Google Scholar
  15. Jones L and Myers J (1963) A common link between photosynthesis and respiration in a blue-green-alga. Nature 199: 670–672Google Scholar
  16. Laws E, Sakshaug E, Babin M, Dandonneau Y, Falkowski P, Geider R, Legendre L, Morel A, Sondergaard M, Takahashi M, Williams P (2002) Photosynthesis and primary productivity in marine ecosystems: practical aspects and application of techniques. JGOFS Report no 36Google Scholar
  17. Ley AC and Mauzerall DC (1986) The extent of energy transfer among Photosystem II reaction centers in Chlorella vulgaris. Biochim Biophys Acta 850: 234–248Google Scholar
  18. Markager, S (1998) Dark uptake of inorganic 14C in oligotrophic oceanic waters. J Plankton Res 20: 1813–1836Google Scholar
  19. Myers, J (1971) Enhancement studies in photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 22: 289–312Google Scholar
  20. Perry MJ, Talbot MC and Alberte RS (1981) Photoadaptation in marine phytoplankton: response of the photosynthetic unit. Marine Biol 62: 91–101Google Scholar
  21. Platt T, Gallegos CL and Harrison WG (1980) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in natural assemblages of marine phytoplankton. J Mar Res 38: 687–701Google Scholar
  22. Poskuta JW (1992) Relationships between photosynthesis and respiration in plants. Wiadomosci Botaniczne 36: 47–52Google Scholar
  23. Rohacek K and Bartak M (1999) Techniques of modulated chlorophyll fluorescence: basic concepts, useful parameters, and some applications. Photosynthetica 37: 339–363Google Scholar
  24. Sakshaug E, Bricaud A, Dandonneau Y, Falkowski PG, Kiefer DA, Legendre L, Morel A, Parslow J and Takahashi M (1997) Parameters of photosynthesis: definitions, theory and interpretation of results. J Plankton Res 19: 1637–1670Google Scholar
  25. Yentsch CS (1974) Some aspects of the environmental physiology of marine phytoplankton: a second look. Oceanogr Mar Biol 12: 41–75Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 48-336ACambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the Environment Marine LaboratoryDuke UniversityBeaufortUSA

Personalised recommendations