 |
| Titel |
Explaining the variability of Photochemical Reflectance Index (PRI): deconvolution of variability related to Light Use Efficiency and Canopy attributes. |
| VerfasserIn |
Elodie Merlier, Gabriel Hmimina, Eric Dufrêne, Kamel Soudani |
| Konferenz |
EGU General Assembly 2014
|
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| Digitales Dokument |
PDF |
| Erschienen |
In: GRA - Volume 16 (2014) |
| Datensatznummer |
250091306
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 EGU/EGU2014-12630.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| The Photochemical Reflectance Index (PRI) was designed as a proxy of the state of xanthophyll cycle which is used as a response of plants to excess of light (Gamon et al., 1990; 1992). Strong relationships between PRI and LUE were shown at leaf and canopy scales and over a wide range of species (Garbulsky et al., 2011). However, its use at canopy scale was shown to be significantly hampered by effects of confounding factors such as the PRI sensitivity to leaf pigment content (Gamon et al. 2001; Nakaji et al. 2006) and to canopy structure (Hilker et al. 2008). Several approaches aimed at correcting such effects and recent works focused on the deconvolution of LUE related and LUE unrelated PRI variability (Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran et al. 2012).In this study, the PRI variability at canopy scale is investigated over two years on three species (Fagus sylvatica, Quercus robur and Pinus sylvestris) growing under two water regimes. At daily scale, PRI variability is mainly explained by radiation conditions. As already reported at leaf scale in Hmimina et al. (2014), analysis of PRI responses to incoming photosynthetically active radiation over seasonal scale allowed to separate two sources of variability : a constitutive variability mainly related to canopy structure and leaf chlorophyll content and a facultative variability mainly related to LUE and soil moisture content. These results highlight the composite nature of PRI signal measured at canopy scale and the importance of disentangling its sources of variability in order to accurately assess ecosystem light use efficiency.
Gamon JA, Field CB, Bilger W, Björkman O, Fredeen AL, Peñuelas J. 1990. Remote sensing of the xanthophyll cycle and chlorophyll fluorescence in sunflower leaves and canopies. Oecologia 85, 1–7.
Gamon JA, Field CB, Fredeen A AL, Thayer S. 2001. Assessing photosynthetic downregulation in sunflower stands with an optically-based model. Photosynthesis Research 67, 113–125.
Gamon JA, Peñuelas J, Field CB. 1992. A narrow-waveband spectral index that tracks diurnal changes in photosynthetic efficiency. Remote Sensing of Environment 41, 35–44.
Garbulsky MF, Peñuelas J, Gamon J, Inoue Y, Filella I. 2011. The photochemical reflectance index (PRI) and the remote sensing of leaf, canopy and ecosystem radiation use efficiencies: A review and meta-analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment 115, 281–297.
Hilker T, Coops NC, Hall FG, Black TA, Wulder MA, Nesic Z, Krishnan P. 2008. Separating physiologically and directionally induced changes in PRI using BRDF models. Remote Sensing of Environment 112, 2777–2788.
Hmimina G, Dufrêne E, Soudani K. 2014. Relationship between PRI and leaf ecophysiological and biochemical parameters under two different water statuses: toward a rapid and efficient correction method using real-time measurements. Plant, Cell & Environment 37, 2, 473-487.
Nakaji T, Oguma H, Fujinuma Y. 2006. Seasonal changes in the relationship between photochemical reflectance index and photosynthetic light use efficiency of Japanese larch needles. International Journal of Remote Sensing 27, 493–509.
Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran P, Munehiro M, Omasa K. 2012. Relationships between the photochemical reflectance index (PRI) and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and plant pigment indices at different leaf growth stages. Photosynthesis Research 113, 261–271. |
|
|
|
|
|
|