BI001 (LBE5001)

Questions – Class #1
PS: Deadline for sending questions
(if you want to see your doubt discussed at the beginning of the next class)

every Wednesday (until 23:59:59)!

Victor (next time, in English)
"Na aula nós vimos duas variedades de cana-de-açúcar, IACSP95-5000 (planófila) e SP79-1011 (erectófila), onde pelo
experimento demonstrado, concluímos que a variedade planófila captava mais radiação fotossinteticamente ativa
(PAR) que a variedade erectófila antes de 200 dias de plantio, e após 460 dias, com ambas variedades captando uma
quantidade de PAR similar entre os períodos citados.

Considerando o auto-sombreamento, muito comum em culturas como a cana-de-açúcar, seria este o motivo pelo qual
plantas erectófilas teriam índices de interceptação de luz similares aos de plantas planófilas em cultivos adensados?

Isto tendo em vista o ângulo de inclinação das folhas destas plantas, que nas planófilas (mais perpendiculares ao solo),
apesar de captarem mais luz em uma única folha, acabam promovendo maior sombreamento de folhas abaixo do
dossel, ocorrendo a situação inversa em plantas erectófilas.

Esta dúvida surgiu ao pensar que, continuando no exemplo da cana-de-açúcar, folhas abaixo do dossel e sombreadas
ativam o mecanismo de senescência, originando a palha da cana, isto porque a luz captada por estas folhas já não é
suficiente para suprir a manutenção deste tecido (e muito menos ser utilizada para acúmulo de biomassa), o que
representa perdas energéticas para a planta, que prefere descartar este órgão, secando a folha, e permanecer apenas
com folhas mais jovens (com saldos energéticos positivos).

Talvez esta situação faça com que variedades de cana planófilas produzam mais palha do que variedades erectófilas,
sendo a quantidade de palha produzida diretamente proporcional ao índice de interceptação de luz foliar."
AND ABOUT THE LIGHT INTERCEPTION EFFICIENCY?

Canopy morphology
Factors affecNng this trait:

IACSP95-5000 SP79-1011
• Speed of canopy
development and closure planophile erectophile
• Leaf absorbance
• Canopy longevity
• Canopy size
• Canopy architecture
 LIGHT INTERCEPTION EFFICIENCY: genotypic variaXon & canopy architecture

2746 MJ

IACSP IACSP SP IACSP

95-5000 94-2101 79-1011 94-2094

εi 0.90 0.78 0.79 0.86

0.12
Magalhães Filho (2014)
Gabrielle
My question is about light conversion efficiency (or light use efficiency) and, more specifically, maintenance and
growth respiration.

During the lesson, and based on your explanation, I imagined that these two types of respiration are influenced by a
variety of factors, including genotype and phenology, as well as enzymatic efficiency and nutrient use. As a result,
this becomes an important source of information for determining the pattern of biomass production among plants.

So, what direct measurement or analysis can be used to quantify (or qualify) the proportion of each type of
respiration in a plant? Are multiple analyses necessary?

Furthermore, when it comes to grain filling and flower production, is there another type of respiration that expresses
this carbon dioxide/energy consumption?
 iation with measured values (Fig. 27). This suggests that

Way #1
Slope = growth respiration

Way #2
Composition of new biomass produced
138 2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

TABLE 10. An example of a simplified calculation of the variables characterizing biosynthesis of biomass
from glucose, nitrate and minerals.
O2
Concentration required NAD(P)H
in biomass Glucose for CO2 production required for
t fresh gives the rate of O2 consumption in the roots which is required(mg g!1 for synthesis during synthesis synthesis ATP required for
Compound dry mass) synthesis (mmol) (mmol) (mmol) synthesis (mmol)
elative required for maintenance. The slope of the projection
rate ofRGRof=the
relative
line ongrowth rate gives the O2 consumption
the y–z plane N-compounds 230 371 65 2100 7.14 17.83
Carbohydrates 565 662 0 857 !2.03 6.92
on per required to produce one gram of biomass. When pro-
FM = fresh mass
growth jected on the x–y plane, the slope gives the specific
Lipids
Lignin
25
80
71
166
0
230
807
918
0.25
!0.34
1.27
1.50
ive the respiratory costs for ion transport. In (B) the slope Organic acids 50 45 0 !52 !0.84 !0.23
Minerals 50 0 0 0 0 0
ercept gives costs for growth including ion uptake (after Total 1000 1315 295 4630 3.68 27.29
y-axis Lambers et al. 2002).
Source: Penning de Vries et al. (1974).

in plant biomass, we can calculate the costs for a surprisingly effective. First, this is because two
Wendy
"Considering biomass as biological material derived from living or recently living organisms, and any organic
material, are cyanobacteria considered producers of biomass?

If so, how are parameters such as primary productivity and crop yield, light interception/conversion efficiency,
partitioning efficiency calculated, or are there other parameters to consider?"
Fundamentals of biomass production

Primary productivity

PP = 0.487 x St x ei x ec

PP: primary productivity (optimum management and

abscense of biotic and abiotic stresses)
St: total incident solar radiation during the growing
Fundamentals of biomass production
season
ei: light interception efficiency Crop yield
ec: light conversion efficiency
Y = 0.487 x St x ei x ec x ep

Y: crop productivity (optimum management and

abscense of biotic and abiotic stresses)
St: total incident solar radiation during the growing
season
ei: light interception efficiency**
ec: light conversion efficiency
ep: partitioning efficiency**
Abubakar
How do you determine the incident radiation and relationship with bioenergy?
Fundamentals of biomass production

Light interception efficiency

How to measure...
Light Conversion Efficiency
Light conversion efficiency by SUGARCANE

Superior calorific
power: 17.5 MJ kg-1

εc = 0.087 or 8.7%

Biomass produced
(dry mass, here)

Intercepted light (not incident)

Magalhães Filho (2014)
Wellington
Considering that the ideal temperature for photosynthesis and activity of Rubisco is between 38°C and 40°C, I wonder if it would be
considerable to apply a tree-lined system to increase planting efficiency, since this tree-lined system could be oriented in such a way
as to create shading and thus stabilize the temperature, understanding that depending on the species installed, the area in square
meters can satisfy a good efficiency and production ratio. There is also a secondary gain that would be carbon credits.

Would it be something to consider from a strategic point of view in production?

Attached, I tried to simulate this thought in an image.

Key concepts

• Light saturation of photosynthesis

• Limiting factors for photosynthesis
Marcos (next time, in English)
Mas uma duvida que tive durante a leitura é sobre os estudos avaliando a interceptação de luz.

As amostras durante os estudos consideram a cobertura foliar de uma única planta ou de uma área plantada? Neste último caso,
pensando em uma planta única, o melhor cenário é uma planta com grande cobertura foliar e maior espaçamento entre outra
planta, ou menor cobertura foliar com espaçamento menor entre plantas. Como é considerando a competitividade entre as
plantas.
Fundamentals of biomass production

Primary productivity

PP = 0.487 x St x ei x ec

PP: primary productivity (optimum management and

abscense of biotic and abiotic stresses)
St: total incident solar radiation during the growing
Fundamentals of biomass production
season
ei: light interception efficiency Crop yield
ec: light conversion efficiency
Y = 0.487 x St x ei x ec x ep

Y: crop productivity (optimum management and

Unit >>> ton/ha or kg/ha
abscense of biotic and abiotic stresses)
St: total incident solar radiation during the growing
season
ei: light interception efficiency**
ec: light conversion efficiency
ep: partitioning efficiency**
Light Conversion
Light conversion Efficiency
efficiency by SUGARCANE

Unit for light:

Superior calorific
power: 17.5 MJ-2kg-1-1
J m s (= W m-2)

εc = 0.087 or
mol8.7%
m-2 s-1

Intercepted light (not incident)

Magalhães Filho (2014)
Bernardo (next time, in English)

De acordo com a arquitetura do dossel, as culturas podem ser classificadas, de acordo com o slide nº 22, em eretófilos e
planófilos. Segundo o meu entendimento, os planófilos possuem maior Eficiência de Interceptação da Luz Solar (Ei) em relação
aos eretófilos.

A questão é a seguinte: a maior incidência de luz solar neste tipo de dossel proporciona maior crescimento da planta em relação a
outro tipo de dossel ou é algo que não está relacionado? Apesar de PP e Y serem diretamente proporcionais a Ei

Growth = irreversible increase in biomass (consider dry mass)

Fundamentals of biomass production

Primary productivity

PP = 0.487 x St x ei x ec

PP: primary productivity (optimum management and

abscense of biotic and abiotic stresses)
St: total incident solar radiation during the growing
Fundamentals of biomass production
season
ei: light interception efficiency Crop yield
ec: light conversion efficiency
Y = 0.487 x St x ei x ec x ep

Y: crop productivity (optimum management and

Unit >>> ton/ha or kg/ha
abscense of biotic and abiotic stresses)
St: total incident solar radiation during the growing
season
ei: light interception efficiency**
ec: light conversion efficiency
ep: partitioning efficiency**
 1.0
0.88 0.88 0.88
0.9 0.86 Sugarcane
0.8 Mas Rafael, eu li nos livros que a eficiência

εp
0.7 máxima teórica em plantas C4 é de 6%?
0.6 Based on these results, select the genotype
0.5 with the lowest biomass production
RetrospecXva vs. PerspecXva

IACSP95-5000

IACSP94-2094

IACSP94-2101

SP79-1011
1.0 0.90
0.86 0.12 0.097 0.103
0.9 0.087
0.78 0.79 0.10
0.8 0.08 0.073
εi

0.7 0.06

εC
0.6 0.04
0.5 0.02
0.00
IACSP95-5000

IACSP94-2094

IACSP95-5000
IACSP94-2101

IACSP94-2094
SP79-1011

IACSP94-2101

SP79-1011
Magalhães Filho (2014)
Eduardo
Why is there no energy loss in C4 plants through photorespiration? resulting in greater light efficiency conversion compared to
C3 plants

Losses during light conversion efficiency

Because...

the CO2 Concentration Mechanism

(CCM)

Zhu et al. (2010)