Plant Physiol.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Plant Physiology 73:671-676 (1983)
© 1983 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Montavon, M.
Right arrow Articles by Greppin, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Montavon, M.
Right arrow Articles by Greppin, H.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Montavon, M.
Right arrow Articles by Greppin, H.
Articles

Far-Red Light-Induced Changes in Intracellular Potentials of Spinach Mesophyll Cells

Interaction with Red Light

Michel Montavon, Benjamin A. Horwitz and Hubert Greppin

Plant Physiology Laboratory, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland, Department of Plant Genetics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Rehovot, Israel

In green plants, the large bioelectric changes that photosynthetically active light stimulates make it difficult to observe electrical potential changes related to phytochrome photoconversion. As a first step towards distinguishing between photosynthetic and phytochrome effects, we showed that red light enhances far-red stimulated intracellular potential changes in spinach (Spinacia oleracea) leaf mesophyll cells.

For a dark-adapted leaf, the response to far-red light increased during the first 10 to 30 exposures of 2.5 minutes, after which it was constant. The intracellular potential depolarized by an average of 0.3 millivolts during each 2.5-minute far-red light period, and returned to the resting value during each subsequent dark period. Continuous supplementary red light (at 1-5% of the fluence rate of the far-red light that stimulated the depolarizations) increased the response to far-red 2- to 3-fold. Supplementary red light did not amplify the response to alternating 702 nanometers light and dark periods. The Emerson enhancement effect thus does not seem to explain amplification of the response to 730 nanometers light by supplementary red light. This does not prove that photosynthetic pigments are not involved in some other way.








HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1983 by the American Society of Plant Biologists