Is Increased Chloroplast Concentration Always Beneficial for Photosynthesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter antiflag403
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photosynthesis
AI Thread Summary
Increased chloroplast concentration initially led to decreased absorbance, indicating higher photosynthetic activity, but eventually resulted in increased absorbance, suggesting a decline in activity. This unexpected outcome may be attributed to a saturation effect, where too much chlorophyll can hinder photosynthesis. The use of DPIP as an artificial substrate is unlikely to influence the results significantly. The experiment raises questions about the optimal concentration of chloroplasts for maximizing photosynthetic efficiency. Further investigation is needed to clarify the observed phenomenon.
antiflag403
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone,
We did an experiment a while back to test the affect of increased concentrations of chloroplast on photosynthetic activity. It seemed intuitive to think that increased chloroplast concentration would yeild increased photosynthetic activity. To measure photosynthetic activty we used DPIP and a photospectrometer. As we increased chloroplast concentration, the measured absorbance decreased (indicating increased photosynthetic activity), however at a point, the absorbance began to rise (indicating decreased photosynthetic activty). We found this odd and are having trouble explaining it. Anyone have any ideas? Could it just be something to do with the DPIP?
Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"If a little bit is good, a lot must be really good." You may have run into a "saturation" effect, and there are insufficient details/description to say absolutely that you did or did not. DPIP is present strictly as an artificial substrate, and is unlikely to be affecting indicated activity.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top