2006
DOI: 10.1007/s11120-005-9008-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visible foliar injury caused by ozone alters the relationship between SPAD meter readings and chlorophyll concentrations in cutleaf coneflower

Abstract: The ability of the SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter to quantify chlorophyll amounts in ozone-affected leaves of cutleaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata var. digitata) was assessed in this study. When relatively uninjured leaves were measured (percent leaf area affected by stipple less than 6%), SPAD meter readings were linearly related to total chlorophyll with an adjusted R (2) of 0.84. However, when leaves with foliar injury (characterized as a purple to brownish stipple on the upper leaf surface affecting more th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
45
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
4
45
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One potential limitation of absorbance meters is that at high levels of chlorophyll, so much of the 650-660 nm light is absorbed by the leaf that little remains to be transmitted and measured on the far side (Richardson et al, 2002), and likely CCI values are mainly determined by differences in transmittance at 930-940 nm. Other common chlorophyll meters, such as the Minolta SPAD model, use linear (Gratani, 1992;Neufeld et al, 2006;Yamamoto et al, 2002;Wang et al, 2004) or exponential equations (Markwell et al, 1995;Monje and Bugbee, 1992;Uddling et al, 2007). Although both meters use similar wavelengths, chlorophyll indices are calculated differently, and relationships between the two meters involve third-order polynomial models (Richardson et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One potential limitation of absorbance meters is that at high levels of chlorophyll, so much of the 650-660 nm light is absorbed by the leaf that little remains to be transmitted and measured on the far side (Richardson et al, 2002), and likely CCI values are mainly determined by differences in transmittance at 930-940 nm. Other common chlorophyll meters, such as the Minolta SPAD model, use linear (Gratani, 1992;Neufeld et al, 2006;Yamamoto et al, 2002;Wang et al, 2004) or exponential equations (Markwell et al, 1995;Monje and Bugbee, 1992;Uddling et al, 2007). Although both meters use similar wavelengths, chlorophyll indices are calculated differently, and relationships between the two meters involve third-order polynomial models (Richardson et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the leaf chlorophyll content is one of the most significant parameters related to the physiological status of plants. Estimations of chlorophyll contents and related chlorophyll parameters have practical implications since they can be used as an index of nutrient status (Berg and Perkins, 2004;Chang and Robinson, 2003;Moran et al, 2000;Wood et al, 1992), physiological stress (Daas et al, 2008;Datt, 1999;Neufeld et al, 2006;Peguero-Pina et al, 2008;Peñuelas and Filella, 1998) and changes in abiotic factors (Abadía et al, 1996;Gratani et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter can estimate the total chlorophyll amounts in leaves of a variety of species with a high degree of accuracy, which is a nondestructive method (Neufeld et al 2006). For each plant, measurements were taken at three locations on each leaf, two on each side of the midrib on flag leaves, and then averaged.…”
Section: Chlorophyll Contentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter can estimate total chlorophyll amounts in leaves of a variety of species with a high degree of accuracy, which is a non-destructive method (Neufeld et al, 2006). For each plant, measurements were taken at four locations on each leaf, two on each side of the midrib on all fully expanded leaves and then averaged (Khan et al, 2003).…”
Section: Chlorophyll Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%