The dissipation of excess excitation energy in British plant species
Abstract
The reversible dissipation of excitation energy in higher plants is believed to protect against light‐induced damage to the photosynthetic apparatus. This dissipation is measured as the non‐photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. A method is described whereby the saturated capacity for rapidly reversible non‐photochemical quenching can be compared between plant species. This method was applied to 22 common British plant species whose habitat was quantified using an index that describes shade tolerance. An association was found between occurrence in open habitats and a high capacity for non‐photochemical quenching. It was found that, whilst this capacity was species dependent, it did not depend upon the conditions under which the plant was grown. The possible role of zeaxanthin as a determinant of quenching capacity was examined by measuring the contents of xanthophyll cycle carotenoids for each species. Comparing species, no correlation was seen between the saturated level of non‐photochemical quenching and zeaxanthin content expressed relative to either total carotenoid or to chlorophyll. When zeaxanthin was expressed relative to the amount of xanthophyll cycle intermediates (zeaxanthin, antheraxanthin and violaxanthin), a weak correlation was seen.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Thermal dissipation process represents the main safety valve, avoiding photoinhibition and permanent damages to photosystems.
“Thermal dissipation process represents the main”
From Green compost amendment improves potato plant performance on Mars regolith simulant as substrate for cultivation in space (2023) · cites this paper as Johnson et al. 1993
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Caporale, A. G., Paradiso, R., Liuzzi, G., Palladino, M., Amitrano, C., Arena, C., Arouna, N., Verrillo, M., Cozzolino, V., De Pascale, S., et al. (2023) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-022-05860-0 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- JOHNSON, G. N., YOUNG, A. J., SCHOLES, J. D., & HORTON, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- HORTON, P.
- Venue
- Plant, Cell & Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 673-679
- ISSN
- 0140-7791 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3040
- OpenAlex
- W1973115815
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 2.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Plant Cell & Environment (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Environment Research Council
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Photosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Stress Responses and Tolerance
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Light effects on plants
- Keywords
- non-photochemical quenching, excitation energy dissipation, chlorophyll fluorescence, light damage, photosynthetic apparatus, shade tolerance, habitat index, zeaxanthin, xanthophyll cycle, antheraxanthin, violaxanthin, species comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review