Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271
DOI 10.1007/s11120-012-9747-4

REGULAR PAPER

Relationships between the photochemical reflectance index (PRI)
and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and plant pigment
indices at different leaf growth stages
Parinaz Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran • Masashi Munehiro •Kenji Omasa

Received: 16 January 2012 / Accepted: 9 May 2012 / Published online: 30 May 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This study aimed to evaluate the photochemicalreflectance index (PRI) for assessing plant photosynthetic
performance throughout the plant life cycle. The relationships between PRI, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters,
and leaf pigment indices in Solanum melongena L.
(aubergine; eggplant) were studied using photosynthetic
induction curves both in short-term (diurnal) and long-term(seasonal) periods under different light intensities. We
found good correlations between PRI/non-photochemical
quenching (NPQ) and PRI/electron transport rate (ETR) in
the short term at the same site of a single leaf but these
relationships did not hold throughout the life of the plant.
In general, changes in PRI owing to NPQ or ETR variations in the short term were \20 % of those that occurredwith leaf aging. Results also showed that PRI was highly
correlated to plant pigments, especially chlorophyll indicesmeasured by spectral reflectance. Moreover, relationshipsof steady-state PRI/ETR and steady-state PRI/photochemical yield of photosystem II (UPSII) measured at uniform
light intensity at different life stages proved that overall
photosynthesis capacity and steady-state PRI were better
correlated through chlorophyll content than NPQ andxanthophylls. The calibrated PRI index accommodated
these pigments effects and gave better correlation with
NPQ and ETR than PRI. Further studies of PRI indicesbased on pigments other than xanthophylls, and studies on
PRI mechanisms in different species are recommended.

P. Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran  M. Munehiro  K. Omasa (&)
Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering,
Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The
University of Tokyo, 1-1-1Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657,
Japane-mail: aomasa@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Keywords
pigment

PRI  NPQ  ETR  UPSII  Leaf  Plant

Introduction
Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis is the most powerful
non-destructive technique to assess the photosynthetic
performance of plants (Bilger and Björkman 1990; Genty
et al. 1989; Govindjee 1995; Krause and Weis 1991;
Maxwell and Johnson 2000; Omasa 2011; Papageorgiou
and Govindjee 2004). Excessive light dissipated as heatthrough non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) of chlorophyll fluorescence, via mechanisms stabilized by xanthophyll cycles, are used as a proxy to estimate photosynthesis
capacity of plants. In the violaxanthin cycle, excessive
absorbed light causes the de-epoxidation of violaxanthin tozeaxanthin via antheraxanthin, leading to an increase in
NPQ that is an indicator of the proportion of the absorbed
radiation not used for electron transport in photosynthesis.
Description of this mechanism has been presented by many
researchers (Adams and Demmig-Adams 1994; Bilger andBjörkman 1990; de Bianchi et al. 2010; Demmig-Adams
and Adams 1992).
However, using chlorophyll fluorescence analysis toassess photosynthesis activities of plants at larger scales isdifficult. Studies carried out using a portable laboratory
radiometer have identified an absorbance change at 505 nm(Bilger et al. 1989) and a reflectance change at 531 nm(Gamon et al. 1990) related to the conversion of violaxanthin to zeaxanthin in an individual leaf. Using thisconcept, the photochemical reflectance index (PRI) was
developed based on the changes in reflectance at 531 nm toa reference band at around 570 nm, for daily evaluation ofphotosynthesis via detection of epoxidation state of

123

262

pigments in xanthophyll cycle (Gamon et al. 1990, 1992).
Thus PRI has emerged as a good alternative to chlorophyll
fluorescence analysis in remote sensing as it is able todetect short term (diurnal) changes of photosynthesis thatare not captured in conventional remotely sensed vegetation indices such as normalized difference vegetation index(NDVI). PRI has been found to be well correlated to NPQ
and photosynthetic light use efficiency (LUEp) at both leaf
and canopy levels (Filella et al. 1996; Gamon et al. 1992,
1997; Penuelas et al. 1995, 2011; Richardson and Berlyn
2002; Trotter et al. 2002). At ecosystem levels, PRI was
correlated with total crop field CO2 uptake (Penuelas andInoue 2000) and LUEp in the boreal forest (Nichol et al.
2002), and also has been used to estimate the ecosystemcarbon uptake (Nichol et al. 2002, 2006; Rahman et al.
2004, 2001). A meta-analysis of PRI data can be found in
Garbulsky et al. (2011).
However, the relationship between PRI and LUEp has
been found to vary quite widely between different studies,so that canopy measurement of PRI often failed to quantify
photosynthetic efficiency (Methy 2000) or was greatly
affected by seasonal changes in canopy structure (Filella
et al. 2004; Nakaji et al. 2006). Canopy level PRI is significantly affected by the solar illumination and viewing
angle, and PRI values are more sensitive to changes in leaf
area index (LAI) than LUEp (Barton and North 2001;
Suárez et al. 2009) and vary greatly between species withthe same photosynthetic capacity (Guo and Trotter 2004).
To reduce the effects of canopy structure, HernándezClemente et al. (2011) used different formulations to calculate PRI for conifer forests. Jones and Vaughan (2010)
also pointed out that interpretation of spectral changes
associated with xanthophyll epoxidation can becomecomplicated by other light-induced changes in leaf absorbance, scattering and reflectance caused by processes suchas chloroplast movement. Recent studies on PRI indicatethat when PRI is applied over longer time periods (seasons,
years) or across species, its variations appear to assess
relative composition of chlorophylls and carotenoids (Filella et al. 2004; Sims and Gamon 2002; Stylinski et al.
2002). On the other hand, spatiotemporal changes of PRI
and NPQ at leaf level indicated that differences in xanthophyll pigments during photosynthesis induction are too
small to be detected by PRI in some instances (Koneshi
et al. 2008). Also 3D lidar image analysis using computer
graphics techniques indicated that when photosynthetic
activities of Helianthus annuus were inhibited by application of a herbicide, changes in chlorophyll fluorescenceintensity was large whereas changes in PRI and plant
pigments changes, were small (Omasa et al. 2007).
Despite shortcomings discussed above, PRI is increasingly being applied to assess plant photosynthetic capacity
at different scales. However, the actual correlation between

123

Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

PRI and NPQ varies with species and seasonal changes in
canopy structure so that it may not explain photosynthetic
performance in all conditions and at different temporal andspatial scales. It seems that PRI variation may be related tochanges in the levels of xanthophyll pigment cycle in the
short term (diurnal) and changes in chlorophyll andcarotenoid contents in the long term (seasonal).
To the authors’ best knowledge, no report dealing with
the PRI relationship to chlorophyll fluorescence during
photosynthetic induction in the short term and over leaf
development in the long term is available. Also relatively
few studies have been conducted on the relationshipbetween PRI and plant pigments other than the xanthophylls. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between PRI and chlorophyll fluorescenceparameters and leaf pigment indices at both short-term andlong-term (different life stages of the leaf) periods under
different light intensities to have a better insight into theapplicability of PRI for assessing plant photosynthetic
performance over the plant life cycle.

Materials and methods
Experimental conditions
Plant materials and growth conditions
Solanum melongena L. (aubergine; eggplant) was grown ina growth chamber for 120 days. The plants were illuminated by a halogen lamp for 12 h each day at a PPF of
500 lmol m-2 s-1. The growth chamber air temperature
was 28 °C during the day and 22 °C at night with relative
humidity of about 50 %. Plants were watered daily with anutrient solution (1:1000 dilution of HYPONex).
Chlorophyll fluorescence and reflectance measurement
Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were measured using
the pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) chlorophyll fluorometer acquisition system (PDA-100 Heinz Walz, Germany, joined to PAM 101/102/103). This system wasinstalled in a dark room and actinic light for photosynthesis
and saturation pulse that cause a transient saturation ofphotosynthetic electron transport were provided with a
150-W halogen lamp (LS-DWL, Sumita Optical Glass,Inc., Japan) and the PAM101/102/103 system with FL103,
respectively. Spectral reflectance was measured by aspectrometer (USB 4000, Ocean Optics Inc, USA). A fiber
optics (101F, Heinz Walz, Germany) was used to connect
the two light sources (actinic light source and saturation
pulse light source), and then the leaf area was illuminatedby light from the fiber optics. The chlorophyll fluorescencePhotosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

was also measured through the fiber optics. The attachedleaves (under growth conditions) were set horizontallyusing a leaf holder in the way that both leaf surfaces could
exchange CO2 and water vapor with the air. The fiber
optics for light source and chlorophyll fluorescence measurement were set vertically to the leaf surface from theupper position. Another fiber optics for reflectance measurement was set at about 45° to the leaf surface and thelight source fiber optics cable to avoid direct reflection oflight from the leaf. The distance between leaf surface andfiber optics surface for reflectance and fluorescence measurement was about 0.5 cm. Actinic and saturation pulse
lights were illuminated to the leaf area about 1.5 cm indiameter. The center area was measured. In this area, thechanges in PPF were ± 0.3 % of actinic light intensities.
The saturation light pulse was about 4,000 lmol
m2 s-1 ± 5 %. Two standard reflectors were used to estimate exact leaf reflectance. One was the standard whiteboard (BaSO4) with reflectance over 95 % and another was
an 18 % gray card (R-27, Kodak). The spectrometer wascalibrated by the standard light source (LS-1-CAL, Ocean
Optics Inc, USA) before the experiment. First, the spectralreflectance ratio of the 18 % gray card to the standard
white board (BaSO4) was obtained, because the reflectanceof the 18 % gray card is similar to leaf reflectance and thatof the standard white board is very high with respect to theleaf. The spectral reflection intensities from leaf and 18 %gray card were measured by the USB 4000 spectrometer
under actinic light conditions before saturation pulse illumination for PAM measurement in the experiments. The
spectral leaf reflectance was calculated from the measured
leaf and 18 % gray card reflection intensities using thespectral reflectance ratio of 18 % gray card to the standard
white board (BaSO4). Experiments were performed using
plant leaves during different life stages under different lightintensities. Actinic lights of 100, 500, 1,000 and
1,500 lmol m-2 s-1 PPF were considered as low, normal,
strong, and very strong light intensities, respectively.
Leaves of Solanum melongena have relatively flat andbroad area between main veins. The area of attached leaf
was measured under the condition in which the leaf was set
horizontally. Therefore, effects of morphological and anatomical variations may be negligible although these effects
cannot be perfectly removed. We also measured leaves
with low water stress growing under enough water supply.
After dark adaptation for 30 min, the maximum yield ofchlorophyll fluorescence in dark (Fm) was acquired undersaturation pulse light. Then, after the start of actinic lightillumination, maximum yield of chlorophyll fluorescence0
in light (Fm ) and minimal yield of chlorophyll fluorescencein light (Ft) were measured during photosynthetic induction
experiments lasting 20 min, and spectral reflectance (from
350 nm to 1050 nm) was measured on the same area of the263

leaf after 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20 min. The
photosynthetic parameters NPQ, photochemical yield ofphotosystem II (UPSII) and electron transport rate (ETR) as
overall photosynthetic capacity were calculated using0
fluorescence parameters of Fm, Ft, Fm , employing thefollowing equations:0
NPQ ¼ ðFm  Fm
Þ=Fm

ð1Þ

0
0
/PSII ¼ ðFm Ft Þ=Fm

ð2Þ

ETR ¼ /PSII  PPF  0:84  0:5:

ð3ÞRetrieved spectral reflectances of the plant leaves at alltime intervals (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20 min)were used to calculate PRI using the following equation:
PRI ¼ ðR531  R570 Þ=ðR531 þ R570 Þ;

ð4Þ

where R531 and R570 are the reflectance at 531 and 570 nm.
The steady-state values of NPQ, UPSII, ETR, and PRI
obtained 20 min after illumination were used to compare
long-term changes in these parameters over the life cycle ofleaves. Similarly, steady-state reflectance spectra of leaves
20 min after illumination were used to retrieve leaf pigment
content indices. For chlorophyll content estimation, fivecommon indices including red-edge normalized difference
vegetation index (mNDVI705) (Datt 1999; Gamon and Surfus
1999; Gitelson and Merzlyak 1994; Sims and Gamon 2002),
modified red-edge normalized difference vegetation index(mND705) (Sims and Gamon 2002), NDVIgreen (Datt 1999;
Gitelson et al. 1996), modified Red-edge Ratio (mSR705)(Sims and Gamon 2002) and combinations of wavelengths
ratios (R750/R700 ratio) (Gitelson and Merzlyak 1996, 1997)
were calculated. For Carotenoids content estimation, four
indices namely carotenoid reflectance index (CRI550, CRI700
and CRI550-780) (Gitelson et al. 2002) and modified carotenoid reflectance index (mCRI) (Gitelson et al. 2006) and foranthocyanins content estimation, two indices including
anthocyanin reflectance index (ARI) (Gitelson et al. 2001)
and modified anthocyanin reflectance index (mARI) (Gitelson et al. 2006) were calculated using equations given below:
mNDVI705 ¼ ðR750  R705 Þ=ðR750 þ R705 Þ

ð5Þ

mND705 ¼ ðR750  R705 Þ=ðR750 þ R705  2R445 Þ

ð6Þ

NDVIgreen ¼ ðR750  R550 Þ=ðR750 þ R550 Þ

ð7Þ

mSR705 ¼ ðR750  R445 Þ=ðR705 þ R445 Þð8Þ

Ratio ¼ ðR750 =R700 Þ

ð9Þ

CRI550 ¼ ðR510 Þ1  ðR550 Þ1

ð10Þ

CRI700 ¼ ðR510 Þ1  ðR700 Þ1hi
CRI550780 ¼ ðR510 Þ1  ðR780 Þ1hi
 m ðR550 Þ1  ðR780 Þ1

ð11Þ

ð12Þ

123

264

h
i
mCRI ¼ ðR510 Þ1  ðR550 Þ1  R780
ARI ¼ ðR550 Þ1  ðR700 Þ1himARI ¼ ðR550 Þ1  ðR700 Þ1  R780 ;Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

ð13Þ
ð14Þ
ð15Þ

where terms with different R subscripts indicate reflectanceat the corresponding wavelengths. In Eq. 12 the value ofm was considered to be 0.75 (Gitelson et al. 2002). The
indices used to estimate pigment contents have been confirmed to have good relationships by comparing withdestructive measurements of chlorophyll content, carotenoid content, etc., from a lot of previous papers and our own
other experiments. Therefore, we did not use the destructive measurements in this experiment.

Results
Relationships between PRI and chlorophyll
fluorescence parameters at both short-term and longterm under different light intensities
Short-term variation in PRI, NPQ, UPSII, and ETR withtime in an induction curve for a matured single green leaf
(short-term) at 3 different light intensities is presented inFig. 1. PRI was almost unchanged over time (0–20 min) at
low light intensity but at higher light intensity a rapid
reduction in PRI was observed for 5 min followed by asteady state attained for the remainder of the period(Fig. 1a). Chlorophyll fluorescence showed an inverse but
otherwise similar trend in NPQ with increasing lightintensity, reflecting the rate and change in UPSII (Fig. 1c)
and ETR (Fig. 1d) as calculated from Eq. 1–3 above. PRI/
NPQ and PRI/ETR relationships over time in the matured
single green leaf at different light intensities are presented
in Fig. 2. PRI was inversely well correlated with both NPQ
and ETR (R2 = 0.87; P \ 0.0001 and R2 = 0.85;
P \ 0.0001, respectively) when data from all light intensities were pooled.
These experiments were repeated with leaves of different ages throughout the plant life cycle. All data for the
relationships between PRI/NPQ and PRI/ETR during
induction experiments with twenty-seven leaf samples atdifferent growth stages from mature (dark green) to old(yellow) leaves are presented in Fig. 3, where samples
tested at different light intensities are plotted separately forclarity. In this figure, leaf chlorophyll content generally
declines from top to bottom as leaves age. Although linear
and well correlated relationships between PRI/NPQ(Fig. 3a, c, e) and PRI/ETR (Fig. 3b, d, f) were found foreach leaf, overall these parameters were very poorly

123

correlated over the whole growth cycle. Data points formature leaves with higher chlorophyll content are clusteredat the top section of each graph in Fig. 3 where chlorophyll
content generally declined with leaf age from top to bottom. Correlations between PRI/NPQ and PRI/ETR were
better at higher chlorophyll contents, but at later stages ofthe plant growth, the relationships were not very good(lower part of each graph in Fig. 3). In general, the range ofchanges in PRI values with NPQ or ETR for induction
curves with individual leaves were found to be \20 % of
overall decline in PRI values with leaf age (top to bottomof all graphs in Fig. 3).
Correlations between steady-state PRI and NPQ, UPSII,
and ETR measured at the end of 20-min induction curves
from leaves at different growth stages are presented inTable 1. This table shows two important relationships.
First, steady-state PRI values at low light intensity are
better correlated with UPSII and ETR than with NPQ
values. Second, the significance of correlations with both
UPSII and ETR decreased in assays at higher light intensity. Considering data at all light intensities together, it isfound that only steady-state UPSII shows significant relationship with steady-state PRI. There was no relationshipbetween steady-state PRI and NPQ at different leaf growthstages.
Relationship between PRI and chlorophyll fluorescenceparameters and leaf pigment indices in different leaf
growth stages
Relationships between steady-state PRI, NPQ, UPSII andETR and plant pigment indices at different growth stages(from dark green to yellow) for all 27 leaf samples arepresented in Table 2. PRI was found to be non-linearly(logarithmically) related to all chlorophyll indices where
the highest R2 values corresponded to mNDVI705 andmND705, respectively. For carotenoid content indices,
steady-state PRI had better logarithmic relationships withCRI550-780 and CRI550, respectively whereas its relationships with mCRI and CRI700 were poor. Steady-state PRI
was inversely related to anthocyanin indices with mARI
having the highest linear R2 value. In contrast to PRI which
was highly and significantly correlated with leaf pigment
indices especially chlorophyll indices, the three chlorophyll
fluorescence parameters were poorly correlated with leaf
pigment indices. NPQ was found to be unrelated to any ofthe leaf pigment indices; UPSII had weak but significant
relationships with only three chlorophyll indices(mNDVI705, mND705 and NDVIgreen) and no significant
relationships with the other two pigment indices. ETR had
a poor relationship with only CRI550 and showed no correlation with other plant pigment indices. The relationships

Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

265

Fig. 1 Changes in a PRI,b NPQ, c UPSII, and d ETR of amatured single green leaf (shortterm) at three different lightintensities (100, 500, and
1,000 lmol m-2 s-1) afterdark-light transition

Fig. 2 Relationships of a PRI/
NPQ and b PRI/ETR of thematured single green leaf
presented in Fig. 1 (symbols forlight intensities are the same as
those in Fig. 1). PRI is inversely
correlated with both NPQ andETR (R2 = 0.87; P \ 0.0001
and R2 = 0.85; P \ 0.0001,
respectively)

between PRI and some plant pigments having the highest
coefficients of determination are shown in Fig. 4. As it canbe observed form Table 2 and Fig. 4, although spectralreflectances of these samples were measured at different
light intensities, there were strong relationships between
plant pigment indices especially chlorophyll indices andsteady-state PRI.

Calibration of PRI with plant pigment indices
As PRI was found to be strongly correlated with plant
pigment indices, it seemed necessary to incorporate theeffect of plant pigments on PRI to improve PRI and NPQ
relationships in the long-term. In this section, a correction
method was applied to calibrate PRI values to improve the

123

266

Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

Fig. 3 Relationships between
PRI/NPQ (left) and PRI/ETR(right) during 20-min induction
time (similar to those in Fig. 1)
at different leaf growth stages(long term; 27 samples). Leaf
age increased from sample 1 to
27. Leaf color changed fromgreen (mature leaf) to yellow(old leaf). Chlorophyll content
values as represented by
mNDVI705 for the 27 samples
are (1) 0.54, (2) 0.5, (3) 0.50,( 4)0.50, (5) 0.50, (6) 0.49, (7) 0.49,(8) 0.48, (9) 0.47, (10) 0.45,(11) 0.43, (12) 0.43, (13) 0.43,(14) 0.39, (15) 0.37, (16) 0.32,(17) 0.28, (18) 0.27, (19) 0.26,(20) 0.21, (21) 0.19, (22) 0.18,(23) 0.16, (24) 0.16, (25) 0.16,(26) 0.13, and (27) 0.12. The
light intensity used for samples
1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17,
19, 22, 23 and 25 was
100 lmol m-2 s-1 (Fig. 3a, b),
whereas 500 lmol m-2 s-1,
was used for samples 4, 5, 9, 10,18, and 20 (Fig. 3c, d). Sample
8 was exposed to
1,000 lmol m-2 s-1 andsamples 2, 13, 21, 24, 26 and 27
were exposed to1,500 lmol m-2 s-1 (Fig. 3e,f). PRI was found to be weakly
correlated with NPQ and ETR
using all 27 samples data (linear
R2 = 0.01; P = 0.1277 andR2 = 0.02; P = 0.05,
respectively)

relationship between PRI and NPQ for leaves during different growth stages.
First, a multiple regression analysis was performed
with steady-state PRI as a function of three plant pigment indices having the highest coefficients of determination as previously determined (see Table 2). As
steady-state PRI was found to be logarithmically correlated to mNDVI705 and CRI550–780 but linearly to mARI,
the multiple regression analysis involved ln mNDVI705

123

and ln CRI550–780 as variables as well as linear mARI.
The results of such an analysis are presented in Table 3
where only mNDVI705 remained in the model and thetwo other indices were excluded. Therefore, the calibration process was continued using only mNDVI705 as
the variable.
Using Eq. 16 derived from the relationship between
steady-state PRI and mNDVI705 (y ¼ 0:645  lnðxÞ þ
0:0688Þ the calibrated PRI (CPRI) was developed:Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

267

Table 1 Linear relationships between steady-state PRI and steadystate NPQ, UPSII and ETR for samples with the same light intensities(light intensities are 100 lmol m-2 s-1 for samples 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12,
Light intensity(lmol m-2 s-1)

ETR (lmol m-2 s-1)

UPSII

NPQ
100

14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 25, 500 lmol m-2 s-1 for samples, 4,5, 9, 10, 18, and 20, and 1,500 lmol m-2 s-1 for samples 2, 13, 21,
24, 26, and 27) and for all samples together (data from Figs.3, 4)

500

1,500

All
intensities

100

500

1,500

All
intensities

100

500

1,500

All
intensities

R2 value

0.04

0.00

0.10

0.12

0.58

0.46

0.06

0.33

0.53

0.43

0.06

0.02

SE

0.035

0.022

0.046

0.033

0.023

0.016

0.04660.0291

0.026

0.016

0.046

0.035

P value

0.48320.91740.5521 0.0786

0.0016**0.14410.64280.0017**0.003**

0.15890.63300.4441** Significant at 1 % error

Table 2 Relationships between steady-state PRI, NPQ, UPSII, and ETR from induction curves 20 min after the dark-light transition and plant
pigment indices at different leaf growth stages (27 samples)
Leaf pigment indices

PRI

ETR (lmolm-2s-1)

UPSII

NPQ

R2

P value

R2

P value

R2

P value

R2

P valuemNDVI 705

0.82

\0.0001**

0.05

0.50970.23

0.0413*0.15

0.1427

mND7050.82\0.0001**

0.04

0.58430.24

0.0385*0.11

0.2493mSR7050.75\0.0001**

0.02

0.74910.21

0.06010.03

0.7086

Ratio

0.78

\0.0001**

0.02

0.77220.22

0.05850.07

0.3973

NDVIgreen

0.76\0.0001**

0.04

0.64400.25

0.0316*0.00

0.8896
0.0544Chlorophylls

Carotenoids
CRI550-780

0.41

0.0003**0.01

0.84710.20

0.0736

0.22

CRI5500.32

0.0022**0.01

0.84810.15

0.14530.25

0.0332*

CRI7000.14

0.05060.02

0.79350.12

0.22830.20

0.0696mCRI
Anthocyanins

0.29

0.0041**0.01

0.84010.07

0.43580.22

0.0531ARI

0.52\0.0001**

0.01

0.87930.05

0.55660.08

0.3865mARI

0.54\0.0001**

0.02

0.82490.07

0.43150.19

0.0772

2

The samples are the same as those in Figs. 3 and 4. The R values represent best fit relationships (logarithmic between PRI and chlorophyll andcarotenoid indices; linear between PRI and anthocyanin indices and quadratic polynomial for the rest of the table)* Significant at 5 % error; ** significant at 1 % error

Discussion

CPRI ¼ PRI  ð0:645  lnðmNDVI705 Þ þ 0:0688Þ
ð16Þ
To evaluate the performance of CPRI, the relationships
between CPRI and NPQ and ETR during 0–20 min afterdark-light transition in different growth stages of the leaves
are presented in Fig. 5. Comparing Fig. 3a, c, e and Fig. 5a
one can easily observe that the relationship between CPRI
and NPQ is better than that between PRI and NPQ. Also bycomparing Fig. 3b, d and f and Fig. 5b, CPRI shows abetter relationship with ETR than that observed for PRI/
ETR. Therefore, it seems that CPRI can be a better index
than PRI to be used for assessing plant photosynthetic
performance.

Studies of variations in PRI and NPQ with time in photosynthetic induction curves at different light intensities
indicated that PRI behavior in a given leaf is similar to thatof NPQ. The rapid increase in NPQ seen after 1 min in
Fig. 1b presumably reflects the fact that although stomata
may close during 30-min dark adaptation, little change instomatal aperture occurs immediately after irradiation(Pearcy et al. 1994), and that the activities of enzymes
involved in photosynthetic CO2 fixation are low. At low
light intensities, the small burst in NPQ presumably
involves DpH-dependent, xanthophyll-independent processes that may not be detected by PRI, and this is evident

123

268

Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

Fig. 4 Relationships between steady-state PRI measured after
20-min exposure to actinic light and some plant pigment indicescalculated from the same spectral reflectance data set in each of 27

leaves at different growth stages as presented in Fig. 3. a steady-state
PRI and chlorophyll indices, b steady-state PRI and carotenoid
indices and c steady-state PRI and anthocyanin indices

Table 3 Results of multiple regression analysis between steady-state PRI and ln (mNDVI705), ln (CRI550-780) and mARI (Overall coefficient ofdetermination for the regression analysis, R2 = 0.82 and probability level, P = 0.000)
Model

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients

B

b

SE

Constant

0.097

0.031

–

mARI

-0.0170.016-0.144lnmNDVI705

0.066

0.012

lnCRI550–780-0.0170.013

t

P value
3.106

0.005

-1.057

0.301

0.930

5.710

0.000

-0.180-1.2840.212

Data correspond to samples presented in Figs. 3 and 4. Constant is the constant determined for the multiple regression equation
Fig. 5 Relationships ofa CPRI/NPQ and b CPRI/ETR
during 0–20 min after dark-lighttransition in 27 leaf samples (asin Fig. 3) at different growthstages. Color coding is the sameas in Fig. 3. The calibration of
PRI was conducted using datafrom Figs. 3 and 4 andsignificantly improved
correlation with NPQ and ETR(linear R2 = 0.15; P \ 0.0001
and R2 = 0.03; P = 0.003,
respectively)in comparisons of Fig. 1a, b. Much larger rapid increases in
NPQ were observed at 500 and 1,000 lmol m-2 s-1
because despite the greater potential activation of photosynthesis, the leaf was quickly exposed to excess light and123

presumably NPQ was now enhanced by DpH-dependent
de-epoxidation of xanthophyll pigments that were detected
as a decline in PRI. The changes in UPSII and ETR flow as
expected from changes in Fm0 in these induction

Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271

experiments, and so strongly correlated relationships
emerge between PRI/NPQ and PRI/ETR with time in thesame leaf when assayed at different light intensities.
However, when these assays were repeated as pigmentschanged during the plant growth cycle, the same relationships were not observed (Fig. 3). Although good correlations were found between PRI/NPQ and PRI/ETR inmature leaves with higher chlorophyll contents, these did
not persist to the later stages of the plant growth. Gamon
et al. (2001), Filella et al. (2004) and Nakaji et al. (2006)
also found that the relationship between PRI and the xanthophyll cycle can break down at different growth stages
along with reduction in chlorophyll content. In fact, therelationship between PRI and epoxidation state of xanthophylls and LUEp changes as leaves senesce. The rangeof PRI variation for a matured single green leaf(*2.5 9 10-2; Fig. 2) is only *20 % of the range for all
leaves examined over the life cycle (*14 9 10-2; Fig. 3).
Clearly in the longer term, PRI responds to variables otherthan xanthophylls and it was strongly correlated withchlorophyll indices (Fig. 4). Although previous studies
have also shown that PRI variations at short term aremainly influenced by the xanthophyll cycle and changes incontents of carotenoids and chlorophylls (Sims and Gamon
2002; Stylinski et al. 2002), PRI was affected by the poolof carotenoids relative to chlorophylls in Scots pine andHolm oak (Filella et al. 2009).
Relationships between steady-state PRI and NPQ measured at different light intensities were also poor throughout the life cycle of leaves, whereas correlations between
PRI and UPSII and ETR were much stronger (Table 1).
Consistent with this, our studies using thermal and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging techniques, which are capable of simultaneously measuring stomatal conductance andfluorescence parameters, showed that there is a direct
relationship between UPSII and stomata conductance andCO2 uptake (Omasa and Takayama 2003). This indicatesthat we have to look beyond NPQ to discover how to
improve the use of PRI as an indicator of overall photosynthetic capacity through its relationship with chlorophylland carotenoid content, UPSII, ETR and LUE.
As shown by the results of this study, chlorophyll content seems to be the main factor affecting PRI in the longterm. Therefore, it seems necessary to correct PRI for theeffect of this pigment so that estimations of plant photosynthetic capacity through xanthophyll cycle could be
more accurate during the full life cycle of the plant.
We have devised the parameter CPRI (Calibrated PRI)
by incorporating the effect of other photosynthetic pigments, especially chlorophyll indices, into understanding
the PRI/NPQ relationship in the longer term. We found that
CPRI showed better correlation with NPQ when compared269

with that between PRI and NPQ (Fig. 5). The improvementof overall correlations with NPQ and ETR is small but
significant, suggesting that this new index may improveunderstanding throughout the leaf life cycle. Although
CPRI was found to have a better relationship with NPQ
than PRI in the long term, it is still a poor index for longterm analysis of photosynthetic performance. As mentioned earlier, other studies have confirmed there are manyfactors, such as changes in canopy structure and LAI, solar
illumination and viewing geometry and chloroplast movement which affect the relationship between PRI and NPQ,UPSII or ETR and consequently LUE. Therefore, all thesefactors should be considered while using PRI for estimating
photosynthetic performance of vegetation at leaf and canopy scales. Perhaps recently developed remote sensing
chlorophyll fluorescence techniques, such as that based onlaser-induced fluorescence transients (LIFT) can be applied
to further improve correlations between PRI, CPRI, andcanopy level photosynthetic parameters (Omasa 1998;
Malenovský et al. 2009; Pieruschka et al. 2010). Without
further improvement, it seems that PRI is best applied forleaves and canopies with relatively homogeneous chlorophyll content, i.e., to canopies with homogeneous LAI andthe same colored leaves.

Conclusions
The present study on the relationship between PRI andchlorophyll fluorescence parameters and leaf pigment
indices showed that PRI/NPQ and PRI/ETR were moststrongly correlated in the short-term, during photosynthetic
induction experiments on mature, chlorophyll-rich leaves
under controlled laboratory conditions that engaged energy
dissipation via the xanthophyll cycle. Although such relationships were also observed in individual leaves as otherpigments changed with leaf age, the numerical value of
PRI declined and steady-state PRI was found to be highly
correlated with chlorophyll indices. A general relationshipbetween steady-state PRI and UPSII and ETR measured at
the same light intensity at different life stages of leaves
confirmed that overall photosynthesis capacity can becorrelated through the relationship of PRI with other plant
pigments. The new index (Calibrated PRI; CPRI) suggested in this article showed better correlation with NPQ,
confirming that taking into account other factors influencing PRI could significantly improve the performance of thiswidely used index.
Acknowledgments The authors sincerely thank Professor C. Barry
Osmond, the University of Wollongong, Australia for his helpful
discussion and suggestions on the manuscript.

123

270

References
Adams WW, Demmig-Adams B (1994) Carotenoid composition anddown regulation of photosystem II in three conifer species during
the winter. Physiol Plant 92:451–458
Barton CVM, North PRJ (2001) Remote sensing of canopy light use
efficiency using the photochemical reflectance index—modeland sensitivity analysis. Remote Sens Environ 78:264–273
Bilger W, Björkman O (1990) Role of the xanthophyll cycle inphotoprotection elucidated by measurements of light-induced
absorbency changes, fluorescence and photosynthesis in leavesof Hedera canariensis. Photosynth Res 25:173–185
Bilger W, Bjorkman O, Thayer SS (1989) Light-induced spectral
absorbance changes in relation to photosynthesis and theepoxidation state of xanthophyll cycle components in cotton
leaves. Plant Physiol 91:542–551
Datt B (1999) Visible/near infrared reflectance and chlorophyll
content in eucalyptus leaves. Int J Remote Sens 20:2741–2759
de Bianchi S, Ballottari M, Dall’Osto L, Bassi R (2010) Regulation ofplant light harvesting by thermal dissipation of excess energy.
Biochem Soc Trans 38:651–660
Demmig-Adams B, Adams WW (1992) Photoprotection and other
responses of plants to light stress. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Mol
Biol 43:599–626
Filella I, Amaro T, Araus JL, Penuelas J (1996) Relationship between
photosynthetic radiation-use efficiency of barley canopies andthe photochemical reflectance index (PRI). Physiol Plant
96:211–216
Filella I, Penuelas J, Llorens L, Estiarte M (2004) Reflectanceassessment of seasonal and annual changes in biomass and CO2
uptake of a Mediterranean shrubland submitted to experimental
warming and drought. Remote Sens Environ 90:308–318
Filella I, Porcar-Castell A, Munne-Bosch S, Back J, Garbulsky MF,
Penuelas J (2009) PRI assessment of long-term changes incarotenoids/chlorophyll ratio and short-term changes in deepoxidation state of the xanthophyll cycle. Int J Remote Sens
30:4443–4455
Gamon JA, Surfus JS (1999) Assessing leaf pigment content andactivity with a reflectometer. New Phytol 143:105–117
Gamon JA, Field CB, Bilger W, Bjorkman O, Fredeen AL, Penuelas J(1990) Remote-sensing of the xanthophyll cycle and chlorophyll
fluorescence in sunflower leaves and canopies. Oecologia 85:
1–7
Gamon JA, Penuelas J, Field CB (1992) A narrow-waveband spectral
index that tracks diurnal changes in photosynthetic efficiency.
Remote Sens Environ 41:35–44
Gamon JA, Serrano L, Surfus JS (1997) The photochemicalreflectance index: an optical indicator of photosynthetic radiation
use efficiency across species, functional types, and nutrient
levels. Oecologia 112:492–501
Gamon JA, Field CB, Fredeen AL, Thayer S (2001) Assessing
photosynthetic downregulation in sunflower stands with an
optically-based model. Photosynth Res 67:113–125
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 Sens Environ 115:281–297
Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between
quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta
990:87–92
Gitelson A, Merzlyak MN (1994) Spectral reflectance changes
associated with autumn senescence of Aesculus hippocastanum
L and Acer platanoides L leaves—spectral features and relation
to chlorophyll estimation. J Plant Physiol 143:286–292

123

Photosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271
Gitelson AA, Merzlyak MN (1996) Signature analysis of leaf
reflectance spectra: algorithm development for remote sensingof chlorophyll. J Plant Physiol 148:494–500
Gitelson AA, Merzlyak MN (1997) Remote estimation of chlorophyll
content in higher plant leaves. Int J Remote Sens 18:2691–2697
Gitelson AA, Merzlyak MN, Lichtenthaler HK (1996) Detection of
red edge position and chlorophyll content by reflectancemeasurements near 700 nm. J Plant Physiol 148:501–508
Gitelson AA, Merzlyak MN, Chivkunova OB (2001) Opticalproperties and nondestructive estimation of anthocyanin content
in plant leaves. Photochem Photobiol 74:38–45
Gitelson AA, Zur Y, Chivkunova OB, Merzlyak MN (2002)
Assessing carotenoid content in plant leaves with reflectancespectroscopy. Photochem Photobiol 75:272–281
Gitelson AA, Keydan GP, Merzlyak MN (2006) Three-band modelfor noninvasive estimation of chlorophyll, carotenoids, andanthocyanin contents in higher plant leaves. Geophys Res Lett
33:L11402. doi:10.1029/2006GL026457
Govindjee (1995) Sixty-three years since Kautsky: chlorophyll a fluorescence. Aust J Plant Physiol 22:131–160
Guo JM, Trotter CM (2004) Estimating photosynthetic light-use
efficiency using the photochemical reflectance index: variations
among species. Funct Plant Biol 31:255–265
Hernández-Clemente R, Navarro-Cerrillo RM, Suárez L, Morales F,
Zarco-Tejada PJ (2011) Assessing structural effects on PRI for
stress detection in conifer forests. Remote Sens Environ
115:2360–2375
Jones H, Vaughan R (2010) Remote sensing of vegetation: principles,
techniques, and applications. Oxford University Press, NewYork
Koneshi A, Munehiro M, Omasa K (2008) Spatiotemporal changes in
PRI and NPQ under different light intensity gradients on leaf
surfaces. In: Allen JF, Gantt E, Golbeck JH, Osmond B (eds)
Photosynthesis. Energy from the sun: 14th international congress
on photosynthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 627–630
Krause GH, Weis E (1991) Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol
42:313–249
Malenovský Z, Mishra KB, Zemek F, Rascher U, Nedbal L (2009)
Scientific and technical challenges in remote sensing of plant
canopy reflectance and fluorescence. J Exp Bot 60(11):2987–3004
Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence—apractical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668
Methy M (2000) Analysis of photosynthetic activity at the leaf andcanopy levels from reflectance measurements: a case study.
Photosynthetica 38:505–512
Nakaji T, Oguma H, Fujinuma Y (2006) Seasonal changes in therelationship between photochemical reflectance index and photosynthetic light use efficiency of Japanese larch needles. Int J
Remote Sens 27:493–509
Nichol CJ, Lloyd J, Shibistova O, Arneth A, Roser C, Knohl A,
Matsubara S, Grace J (2002) Remote sensing of photosyntheticlight-use efficiency of a Siberian boreal forest. Tellus B 54:677–687
Nichol CJ, Rascher U, Matsubara S, Osmond B (2006) Assessing
photosynthetic efficiency in an experimental mangrove canopy
using remote sensing and chlorophyll fluorescence. Trees 20:9–15
Omasa K (1998) Image instrumentation of chlorophyll a fluorescence.
SPIE 3382:91–99
Omasa K (2011) Fluorescence imaging of photosynthetic performance. In PrometheusWiki. CSIRO Publishing http://promethe
uswiki.publish.csiro.au/tiki-index.php?page=Fluorescence?ima
ging?of?photosynthetic?performance. Accessed 24 May 2012
Omasa K, Takayama K (2003) Simultaneous measurements ofstomatal conductance, non-photochemical quenching and photochemical yield of photosystem II in intact leaves by thermalPhotosynth Res (2012) 113:261–271
and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. Plant Cell Physiol
44:1290–1300
Omasa K, Hosoi F, Konishi A (2007) 3D lidar imaging for detecting
and understanding plant responses and canopy structure. J Exp
Bot 58:881–898
Pearcy RW, Chazdon RL, Gross LJ, Mott KA (1994) Photosynthetic
utilization of sunflecks: a temporally patchy resource on atimescale of seconds to minutes. In: Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW(eds) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants.
Academic Press, San Diego, pp 175–208
Penuelas J, Inoue Y (2000) Reflectance assessment of canopy CO2
uptake. Int J Remote Sens 21:3353–3356
Penuelas J, Filella I, Gamon JA (1995) Assessment of photosynthetic
radiation-use efficiency with spectral reflectance. New Phytol
131:291–296
Penuelas J, Garbulsky MF, Filella I (2011) Photochemical reflectanceindex (PRI) and remote sensing of plant CO2 uptake. New Phytol
191:596–599
Pieruschka R, Klimov D, Kolber ZS, Berry JA (2010) Monitoring ofcold and light stress impact on photosynthesis by using the laser
induced fluorescence transient (LIFT) approach. Funct Plant Biol
37:395–402
Rahman AF, Gamon JA, Fuentes DA, Roberts DA, Prentiss D (2001)
Modeling spatially distributed ecosystem flux of boreal forest

271
using hyperspectral indices from AVIRIS imagery. J Geophys
Res 106:33579–33591
Rahman AF, Cordova VD, Gamon JA, Schmid HP, Sims DA (2004)
Potential of MODIS ocean bands for estimating CO2 flux fromterrestrial vegetation: a novel approach. Geophys Res Lett
31:L10503. doi:10.1029/2004GL019778
Richardson AD, Berlyn GP (2002) Spectral reflectance and photosynthetic properties of Betula papyrifera (Betulaceae) leaves
along an elevational gradient on Mt. Mansfield, Ermont, USA.
Am J Bot 89:88–94
Sims DA, Gamon JA (2002) Relationships between leaf pigment
content and spectral reflectance across a wide range of species,
leaf structures and developmental stages. Remote Sens Environ
81:337–354
Stylinski CD, Gamon JA, Oechel WC (2002) Seasonal patterns ofreflectance indices, carotenoid pigments and photosynthesis of
evergreen chaparral species. Oecologia 131:366–374
Suárez L, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Berni JAJ, González-Dugo V, Fereres E(2009) Modelling PRI for water stress detection using radiativetransfer models. Remote Sens Environ 113(4):730–744
Trotter GM, Whitehead D, Pinkney EJ (2002) The photochemicalreflectance index as a measure of photosynthetic light use
efficiency for plants with varying foliar nitrogen contents. Int J
Remote Sens 23:1207–1212

123