English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Most models of carbon gain as a function of photosynthetic irradiance assume an instantaneous response to increases and decreases in irradiance. High- and low-light-grown plants differ, however, in the time required to adjust to increases and decreases in irradiance. In this study the response to a series of increases and decreases in irradiance was observed in Chrysanthemum x morifolium Ramat. "Fiesta" and compared with calculated values assuming an instantaneous response. There were significant differences between high- and low-light-grown plants in their photosynthetic response to four sequential photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) cycles consisting of 5-minute exposures to 200 and 400 micromoles per square meter per second (mumol m(-2)s(-1)). The CO(2) assimilation rate of high-light-grown plants at the cycle peak increased throughout the PPFD sequence, but the rate of increase was similar to the increase in CO(2) assimilation rate observed under continuous high-light conditions. Low-light leaves showed more variability in their response to light cycles with no significant increase in CO(2) assimilation rate at the cycle peak during sequential cycles. Carbon gain and deviations from actual values (percentage carbon gain over- or underestimation) based on assumptions of instantaneous response were compared under continuous and cyclic light conditions. The percentage carbon gain overestimation depended on the PPFD step size and growth light level of the leaf. When leaves were exposed to a large PPFD increase, the carbon gain was overestimated by 16 to 26%. The photosynthetic response to 100 mumol m(-2) s(-1) PPFD increases and decreases was rapid, and the small overestimation of the predicted carbon gain, observed during photosynthetic induction, was almost entirely negated by the carbon gain underestimation observed after a decrease. If the PPFD cycle was 200 or 400 mumol m(-2) s(-1), high- and low-light leaves showed a carbon gain overestimation of 25% that was not negated by the underestimation observed after a light decrease. When leaves were exposed to sequential PPFD cycles (200-400 mumol m(-2) s(-1)), carbon gain did not differ from leaves exposed to a single PPFD cycle of identical irradiance integral that had the same step size (200-400-200 mumol m(-2) s(-1)) or mean irradiance (200-300-200 mumol m(-2) s(-1)).

Carbon Gain and Photosynthetic Response of Chrysanthemum to Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density Cycles