A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Weaker photosynthetic acclimation to fluctuating than to corresponding steady UVB radiation treatments in grapevines. | LitMetric

Weaker photosynthetic acclimation to fluctuating than to corresponding steady UVB radiation treatments in grapevines.

Physiol Plant

Organismal and Evolutionary Biology (OEB), Viikki Plant Science Centre (ViPS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Published: June 2024

The effects of transient increases in UVB radiation on plants are not well known; whether cumulative damage dominates or, alternately, an increase in photoprotection and recovery periods ameliorates any negative effects. We investigated photosynthetic capacity and metabolite accumulation of grapevines (Vitis vinifera Cabernet Sauvignon) in response to UVB fluctuations under four treatments: fluctuating UVB (FUV) and steady UVB radiation (SUV) at similar total biologically effective UVB dose (2.12 and 2.23 kJ m day), and their two respective no UVB controls. We found a greater decrease in stomatal conductance under SUV than FUV. There was no decrease in maximum yield of photosystem II (F/F) or its operational efficiency (ɸ) under the two UVB treatments, and F/F was higher under SUV than FUV. Photosynthetic capacity was enhanced under FUV in the light-limited region of rapid light-response curves but enhanced by SUV in the light-saturated region. Flavonol content was similarly increased by both UVB treatments. We conclude that, while both FUV and SUV effectively stimulate acclimation to UVB radiation at realistic doses, FUV confers weaker acclimation than SUV. This implies that recovery periods between transient increases in UVB radiation reduce UVB acclimation, compared to an equivalent dose of UVB provided continuously. Thus, caution is needed in interpreting the findings of experiments using steady UVB radiation treatments to infer effects in natural environments, as the stimulatory effect of steady UVB is greater than that of the equivalent fluctuating UVB.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppl.14383DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

uvb radiation
24
uvb
16
steady uvb
16
radiation treatments
8
transient increases
8
increases uvb
8
recovery periods
8
photosynthetic capacity
8
fluctuating uvb
8
suv fuv
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!