SIMULTANEOUS CO2 AND O-16(2) O-18(2) GAS-EXCHANGE AND FLUORESCENCE MEASUREMENTS INDICATE DIFFERENCES IN LIGHT ENERGY-DISSIPATION BETWEEN THE WILD-TYPE AND THE PHYTOCHROME-DEFICIENT AUREA MUTANT OF TOMATO DURING WATER-STRESS/
K. Biehler et al., SIMULTANEOUS CO2 AND O-16(2) O-18(2) GAS-EXCHANGE AND FLUORESCENCE MEASUREMENTS INDICATE DIFFERENCES IN LIGHT ENERGY-DISSIPATION BETWEEN THE WILD-TYPE AND THE PHYTOCHROME-DEFICIENT AUREA MUTANT OF TOMATO DURING WATER-STRESS/, Journal of Experimental Botany, 48(312), 1997, pp. 1439-1449
The CO2-, H2O- and O-16(2)/O-18(2) isotopic-gas exchange and the fluor
escence quenching by attached leaves of the wild-type and of the phyto
chrome-deficient tomato aurea mutant was compared in relation to water
stress and the photon fluence rate, The chlorophyll content of aurea
leaves was reduced and the ultra-structure of the chloroplasts was alt
ered, Nevertheless, the maximum rate of net CO2 uptake in air by the y
ellow-green leaves of the aurea mutant was similar to that by the dark
-green wild-type leaves, However, less O-2 was produced by the leaves
of the aurea mutant than by leaves of the wild-type, This result indic
ates a reduced rate of photosynthetic electron flux in aurea mutant le
aves, No difference in both photochemical and nonphotochemical fluores
cence quenching was found between wild-type and aurea mutant leaves, W
ater stress was correlated with a reversible decrease in the rates of
both net CO2 uptake and transpiration hy wild-type and aurea mutant le
aves, The rate of gross O-16(2) evolution by both wild-type and aurea
mutant leaves was fairly unaffected by water stress, This result shows
that in both wild-type and aurea leaves, the photochemical processes
are highly resistant to water stress, The rate of gross O-18(2) uptake
by wildtype leaves increased during water stress when the photon flue
nce rate was high, Under the same conditions, the rate of gross O-18(2
) uptake by aurea mutant leaves remained unchanged. The physiological
significane of this difference with respect to the (presumed) importan
ce of oxygen reduction in photoprotection is discussed.