Advertisement

Photosynthetica

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 35–39 | Cite as

The Influence of Leaf Windows on the Utilization and Absorption of Radiant Energy in Seven Desert Succulents

  • K.J. Egbert
  • C.E. Martin
Article

Abstract

Four fluorescence parameters [Fv/Fm = the intrinsic efficiency of energy conversion via photosystem 2 (PS2); Fv′/Fm′= the efficiency of energy conversion via PS2 in the light; P = fraction of absorbed radiant energy utilized for photosynthesis; and D = fraction of absorbed radiant energy dissipated as heat] were measured on leaves of seven species of succulents having epidermal windows. While the function of leaf windows has reportedly been to increase absorption of radiant energy and, hence, the rate of photosynthesis in these species, recent evidence indicates that this translucent portion of epidermal tissue, lacking chlorophyll, may also result in photoinhibition in these species, especially for those with growth habits aboveground. Species with aboveground and belowground growth habits were compared with their leaf windows covered with reflective tape and with windows unobstructed. Results showed no increase in photoinhibition for these species resulting from the radiant energy penetrating the window tissue. Although the efficiency of the photosynthetic mechanism was not significantly influenced by the additional radiant energy provided by the window for individual species, there were significant differences in the efficiencies of radiant energy capture (Fv′/Fm′) and utilization (P) between the two growth habits. Species with an aboveground growth habit were less efficient in radiant energy utilization compared with the species having a belowground growth habit.

chlorophyll fluorescence Haworthia truncata Lithops olivacea Opthalmophyllum longum Pepero dolabriformis Peperomia graveolens Peperomia pulchella photoinhibition photosynthesis Senecio rowleyanus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Björkman, O.: Responses to different quantum flux densities.-In: Lange, O.L., Nobel, P.S., Osmond, C.B., Ziegler, H. (ed.) Physiological Plant Ecology I. Pp. 57–107. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 1981.Google Scholar
  2. Boardman, N.K.: Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants.-Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 28: 355–377, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. Carter, G.A.: Primary and secondary effects of water content on the spectral reflectance of leaves.-Amer. J. Bot. 78: 916–924, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. Demmig-Adams, B., Adams, W.W., III, Barker, D.H., Logan, B.A., Bowling, D.R., Verhoeven, A.S.: Using chlorophyll fluorescence to assess the fraction of absorbed light allocated to thermal dissipation of excess excitation.-Physiol. Plant. 98: 253–264, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Egbert, K.J.: The Influence of Leaf Windows on Photosynthesis in Desert Succulents with Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM).-Thesis. University of Kansas, Lawrence 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Egbert, K.J., Martin, C.E.: The influence of leaf “windows” on Crassulacean acid metabolism in the South African succulent Senecio rowleyanus (Asteraceae).-Photosynthetica 36: 139–147, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. Egbert, K.J., Martin, C.E.: Light penetration via leaf windows does not increase photosynthesis in three species of desert succulents.-J. Plant Physiol. 157: 521–525, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Jacobsen, H.: A Handbook of Succulent Plants. Vol. 1–3.-Blandford Press, Dorset 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Krulik, G.A.: Light transmission in window-leaved plants.-Can. J. Bot. 58: 1591–1600, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, R., Clark, W.D., Vodopich, D.S.: Botany.-WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston-New York 1998.Google Scholar
  11. Nobel, P.S., Cui, M., Israel, A.A.: Light, chlorophyll, carboxylase activity and CO2 fixation at various depths in the chlorenchyma of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller under current and elevated CO2.-New Phytol. 128: 315–322, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. Potvin, C., Roff, D.A.: Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics?-Ecology 74: 1617–1628, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. Richter, T., Fukshansky, L.: Optics of a bifacial leaf. 2. Light regime as affected by the leaf structure and the light source.-Photochem. Photobiol. 63: 517–527, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. Šesták, Z., Čatský, J., Jarvis, P.G. (ed.): Plant Photosynthetic Production: Manual of Methods.-Dr W. Junk NV Publ., The Hague 1971.Google Scholar
  15. Simon, J.L.: Resampling: The New Statistics.-Resampling Stats, Arlington 1992.Google Scholar
  16. Terashima, I., Saeki, T.: Light environment within a leaf. I. Optical properties of paradermal sections of Camellia leaves with special reference to differences in the optical properties of palisade and spongy tissues.-Plant Cell Physiol. 24: 1493–1501, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. Vogelmann, T.C.: Penetration of light into plants.-Photochem. Photobiol. 50: 895–902, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. Vogelmann, T.C.: Plant tissue optics.-Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant mol. Biol. 44: 231–251, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Vogelmann, T.C., Knapp, A.K., McClean, T.M., Smith, W.K.: Measurement of light within thin plant tissues with fiber optic microprobes.-Physiol. Plant. 72: 623–630, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • K.J. Egbert
    • 1
  • C.E. Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Program in Plant BiologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations