Preprint Article Version 1 This version not peer reviewed

Plant Fluorescence Measured under Two Extreme Lighting Conditions Using a Passive Spectroradiometer

Version 1 : Received: 23 October 2017 / Approved: 24 October 2017 / Online: 24 October 2017 (05:22:15 CEST)

How to cite: Merrick, T.; Bennartz, R.; Jorge, M.L.S.P.; Silva, T.S.F.; Rausch, J.; Gualda, G. Plant Fluorescence Measured under Two Extreme Lighting Conditions Using a Passive Spectroradiometer. Preprints 2017, 2017100156 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201710.0156.v1). Merrick, T.; Bennartz, R.; Jorge, M.L.S.P.; Silva, T.S.F.; Rausch, J.; Gualda, G. Plant Fluorescence Measured under Two Extreme Lighting Conditions Using a Passive Spectroradiometer. Preprints 2017, 2017100156 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201710.0156.v1).

Abstract

In this study, we evaluated chlorophyll fluorescence (CF) under two extreme illumination conditions at plant scale with a passive spectroradiometer. Fluorescence (F) was estimated by reading directly from radiance spectra of a variety of plants illuminated with light-emitting diode (LED) grow lights in the laboratory. Solar-induced fluorescence (SIF) was estimated from spectral measurements of the same plants under sunlight using the Fraunhofer Line Depth (FLD) method. Chlorophyll fluorescence yield (Fyield) and solar-induced fluorescence yield (SIFyield) were calculated by normalizing F and SIF with absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (APAR). Two approaches to estimating APAR were compared: utilizing white reference spectra and reflected spectra versus white reference spectra combined with the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fPAR) derived from literature. Average F and SIF were different by a factor of approximately twenty-four (F = 0.110 ± 0.038 Wm−2μm−1sr−1 versus SIF = 2.60 ± 1.87 Wm−2μm−1sr−1). In contrast, the average normalized values Fyield and SIFyield were within the margin of error of one another (Fyield = 0.022 ± 0.008 μm−1sr−1 and SIFyield = 0.030 ± 0.020 μm−1sr−1). This study highlights the influence of APAR on CF and the importance of properly accounting for it when estimating yield and demonstrates the ability of two simple and portable experimental setups with a passive instrument to obtain fluorescence metrics.

Subject Areas

photosynthesis; carbon uptake; primary production; light use efficiency; measurement techniques; Oxygen bands; handheld spectrometer; Analytical Spectral Devices

Readers' Comments and Ratings (0)

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Rate this article
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0
Leave a public comment

×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.