For example, it belongs to a type of so-called change-point models in the statistics literature, which possess peculiar behaviours for parameter estimation (Hudson 1966; Khodadadi & Asgharian 2008) and is structurally overparameterized with respect to A/Ci data in the submodels of individual limitation states. Analysis of these complexities led to the development of a new estimation method that is tailored to the structural characteristics of the FvCB model and can, in theory, estimate up to eight parameters in the ribulose 1��5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco)-, RuBP regeneration- and triose-phosphate utilization (TPU)-limited states from an adequately measured A/Ci curve. Simulations, measured A/Ci curves, and chlorophyll fluorescence measurements of multiple tree species were utilized to test the reliability and utility of the new method. Based on insights gained from these

VE 821 analyses, guidelines for informative

Azastene A/Ci curve measurements were proposed. To enable researchers to apply the new method, an interactive website has been set up. Users can upload their data and obtain an automated analysis of A/Ci curves through

http://www.leafweb.ornl.gov. According to the conventional treatment of the FvCB model, the following equations describe photosynthesis and its limitations (Main symbols are defined in Appendix 1): FOR Cc?>?(1?+?3��)��*, ((1a)) For Cc?��?(1?+?3��)��*, ((1b)) (2) (3) (4) (5) Kcoin Eqn 2 is a composite parameter: (6) In Eqn 3, the potential electron transport rate (J) is related to Jmax through empirical relationships such as the following (Farquhar & Wong 1984): (7) where I is the incident light level, �� is a composite parameter accounting for leaf absorptance, spectral quality of the available light as well as the splitting of the available light between photosystem I

Pictilisib in vitro and II, and �� is a curvature parameter. In the literature, the frequently used form alternative to Eqn 1 is A?=?min Ac, Aj, Ap???Rd. That form deviates from the one in the original FvCB paper (Farquhar et?al. 1980) and strictly speaking, is incorrect (G. D. Farquhar, personal communication). It chooses the wrong limitation state for Cc?<?��* and erroneously creates two transitions between the Rubisco- and RuBP regeneration-limited states in the A�CCc relationship. To be valid for all conditions, the choice of the limitation state should be based on the carboxylation rate (Vc), not the net assimilation rate. For Cc?<?(1?+?3��)��*, the TPU-limited Vc (that is, Wp) is negative and therefore, if the TPU-limited state is still included in the comparison, it will always be selected. Additionally, there is a singularity for Wp at Cc?=?(1?+?3��)��*. Thus, the TPU-limited state is not considered for Cc?��?(1?+?3��)��*. The expression for Wp is taken from von Caemmerer (2000) after correcting a typographical error (the factor 3��/2 in the original expression should be 3��, von Caemmerer, personal communication).</div>