, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 389–394 | Cite as

Daily temperature drop prevents inhibition of photosynthesis in tomato plants under continuous light

  • E. N. Ikkonen
  • T. G. Shibaeva
  • E. Rosenqvist
  • C. -O. Ottosen
Original Papers


The negative effects of continuous light (CL) seen in tomato plants are often claimed to be linked to effects of offsetting the diurnal rhythm. In this study we tested whether a short-term daily temperature drop prevents the decreased photosynthetic performance seen in tomato plants grown under CL. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) plantlets were grown at constant temperature of 26°C under 16-h day (16D) or 24-h day (24D) at 150 μmol m−2 s−1 PPFD. Some 24D plants were treated daily by 2 h temperature drop from 26 to 10°C (24D+DROP). Physiological disorder, such as severe leaf chlorosis, a large decrease in net photosynthetic rate, maximal quantum yield of PSII photochemistry, and the effective quantum yield of PSII photochemistry were observed in 24D, but not in 16D and 24D+DROP plants. The daily 2-h drop in temperature eliminated a negative effect of CL on photosynthesis and prevented the development of leaf chlorosis in tomato plants. This could be due to a change in carbohydrate metabolism as the short drop in temperature might allow maintenance of the diurnal rhythms.

Additional key words

chlorophyll fluorescence gas exchange leaf area photodamage stomatal conductance 



ambient CO2 concentration


intercellular CO2 concentration




continuous light


dry mass


daily short-term temperature decrease


minimal fluorescence yield of the dark-adapted state


maximal fluorescence yield of the dark-adapted state


maximal fluorescence yield of the light-adapted state


variable fluorescence


maximal quantum yield of PSII photochemistry


stomatal conductance


leaf area


net photosynthetic rate


dark respiration rate


apparent quantum yield of photosynthesis


effective quantum yield of PSII photochemistry


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson J.M., Chow W.S., Goodchild D.J.: Thylakoid membrane organisation in sun/shade acclimation. — Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15: 11–26, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley F.M., Janes H.W.: Carbon partitioning in tomato leaves exposed to continuous light. — Acta Hortic. 174: 293–302, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. Chapin F.S.: Integrated responses of plants to stress. A centralized system of physiological responses. — Bioscience 41: 29–36, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cushman K.E., Tibbitts T.W., Sharkey T.D., Wise R.R.: Constant-light injury of tomato: Temporal and spatial patterns of carbon dioxide assimilation, starch content, chloroplast integrity, and nectrotic lesions. — J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 120: 1032–1040, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Hillman W.S.: Injury of tomato plants by continuous light and unfavorable photoperiodic cycles. — Am. J. Bot. 43: 89–96, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klimov S.V., Astakhova N.V., Trunova T.I.: Relationship between plant cold tolerance, photosynthesis and ultrastructural modifications of cells and chloroplasts. — Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 44: 759–765, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. Klimov S.V., Trunova T.I., Mokronosov A.T.: [Mechanism of plant adaptation to unfavorable environments via changes in the source-sink relations.] — Sov. Plant Physiol. 37: 1024–1035, 1990. [In Russian]Google Scholar
  8. Kjaer K.H., Poiré R., Ottosen C.O., Walter A.: Rapid adjustment in chrysanthemum carbohydrate turnover and growth activity to a change in time-of-day application of light and daylength. — Funct. Plant Biol. 39: 639–649, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lichtenthaler H.K., Wellburn A.R.: Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. — Biochem. Soc. T. 603: 591–592, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. Markovskaya E.F., Sherudilo E.G., Ripatti P.O., Sysoeva M.I.: [Role of lipids in resistance of cucumber cotyledons to continuous and short-term periodic effect of low hardening temperatures.] — Trans. Karelian Res. C. Rus. Acad. Sci. 3: 67–74, 2009. [In Russian]Google Scholar
  11. Noguchi K., Yoshida K.: Interaction between photosynthesis and respiration in illuminated leaves. — Mitochondrion 8: 87–99, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ohyama K., Manabe K., Omura Y. et al.: Potential use of a 24-hour photoperiod (continuous light) with alternating air temperature for production of tomato plug transplants in a closed system. — HortScience 40: 374–377, 2005.Google Scholar
  13. Omura Y., Oshima Y., Kubota C., Kozai T.: Treatments of fluctuating temperature under continuous light enabled the production of quality transplants of tomato, eggplant and sweet pepper. — HortScience 36: 508, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. Pasian C., Lieth J.: Analysis of the response of net photosynthesis of rose leaves of varying ages to photosynthetically active radiation and temperature. — J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 114: 581–586, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. Pettersen R.I., Torre S., Gislerød H.R.: Effects of leaf aging and light duration on photosynthetic characteristics in a cucumber canopy. — Sci. Hortic.-Amsterdam 125: 82–87, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sysoeva M.I., Markovskaya E.F., Shibaeva T.G.: Plants under continuous light: A review. — Plant Stress 4: 5–17, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Sysoeva M.I., Shibaeva T.G., Sherudilo E.G., Ikkonen E.N.: Control of continuous irradiation injury on tomato plants with a temperature drop. — Acta Hortic. 956: 283–290, 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Tibbitts T.W., Bennett S.M., Cao W.: Control of continuous irradiation injury on potato with daily temperature cycling. — Plant Physiol. 93: 409–411, 1990.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Aken O., Giraud E., Clifton R., Whelan J.: Alternative oxidase: a target and regulator of stress responses. — Physiol. Plantarum 137: 354–361, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Gestel N.C., Nesbit A.D., Gordon E.P. et al.: Continuous light may induce photosynthetic downregulation in onion — consequences for growth and biomass partitioning. — Physiol. Plantarum 125: 235–246, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Velez-Ramirez A.I., van Ieperen W., Vreugdenhil D., Millenaar F.F.: Plants under continuous light. — Trends Plant Sci. 16: 310–318, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institute of Experimental Botany 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. N. Ikkonen
    • 1
  • T. G. Shibaeva
    • 1
  • E. Rosenqvist
    • 2
  • C. -O. Ottosen
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Biology, Karelian Research CentreRussian Academy of SciencesPetrozavodskRussia
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenTaastrupDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Food ScienceAarhus UniversityÅrslevDenmark

Personalised recommendations