% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Cendrero:808946,
author = {Cendrero, Pilar and Moran, M. Susan and Papuga, Shirley A.
and Thorp, K. R. and Alonso, L. and Moreno, J. and
Ponce-Campos, G. and Rascher, U. and Wang, G.},
title = {{P}lant chlorophyll fluorescence: active and passive
measurements at canopy and leaf scales with different
nitrogen treatments},
journal = {The journal of experimental botany},
volume = {67},
number = {1},
issn = {1460-2431},
address = {Oxford},
publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
reportid = {FZJ-2016-02460},
pages = {275 - 286},
year = {2016},
abstract = {Most studies assessing chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) have
examined leaf responses to environmental stress conditions
using active techniques. Alternatively, passive techniques
are able to measure ChlF at both leaf and canopy scales.
However, the measurement principles of both techniques are
different, and only a few datasets concerning the
relationships between them are reported in the literature.
In this study, we investigated the potential for
interchanging ChlF measurements using active techniques with
passive measurements at different temporal and spatial
scales. The ultimate objective was to determine the limits
within which active and passive techniques are comparable.
The results presented in this study showed that active and
passive measurements were highly correlated over the growing
season across nitrogen treatments at both canopy and
leaf-average scale. At the single-leaf scale, the seasonal
relation between techniques was weaker, but still
significant. The variability within single-leaf measurements
was largely related to leaf heterogeneity associated with
variations in CO2 assimilation and stomatal conductance, and
less so to variations in leaf chlorophyll content, leaf size
or measurement inputs (e.g. light reflected and emitted by
the leaf and illumination conditions and leaf spectrum).
This uncertainty was exacerbated when single-leaf analysis
was limited to a particular day rather than the entire
season. We concluded that daily measurements of active and
passive ChlF at the single-leaf scale are not comparable.
However, canopy and leaf-average active measurements can be
used to better understand the daily and seasonal behaviour
of passive ChlF measurements. In turn, this can be used to
better estimate plant photosynthetic capacity and therefore
to provide improved information for crop management.Key
words},
cin = {IBG-2},
ddc = {580},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
pnm = {582 - Plant Science (POF3-582) / 252 - Sustainable Plant
Production in a Changing Environment (POF3-252)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-582 / G:(DE-HGF)POF3-252},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000367816300020},
pubmed = {pmid:26482242},
doi = {10.1093/jxb/erv456},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/808946},
}