This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Web of Science (24) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Peeler, T. C. Articles by Naylor, A. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Peeler, T. C. Articles by Naylor, A. W. Agricola Articles by Peeler, T. C. Articles by Naylor, A. W.

Environmental and Stress Physiology

A Comparison of the Effects of Chilling on Leaf Gas Exchange in Pea (Pisum sativum L.) and Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) ¹

Department of Botany, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706

The effects of chilling on the photosynthesis of a chilling-resistant species, pea (Pisum sativum L. cv Alaska) and a chilling-sensitive species, cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. cv Ashley) were compared in order to determine the differences in the photosynthetic chilling sensitivity of these two species. For these experiments, plants were chilled (5°C) for different lengths of time in the dark or light. Following a 1 hour recovery period at 25°C, photosynthetic activity was measured by gas exchange (CO₂ uptake and H₂O release), quantum yield, and induced chlorophyll fluorescence. The results show that pea photosynthesis was largely unaffected by two consecutive nights of chilling in the dark, or by chilling during a complete light and dark cycle (15 hours/9 hours). Cucumber gas exchange was reduced by one night of chilling, but its quantum yield and variable fluorescence were unaffected by dark chilling. However, chilling cucumber in the light led to reduced CO₂ fixation, increased internal leaf CO₂ concentration, decreased quantum yield, and loss of variable fluorescence. These results indicate that chilling temperatures in conjunction with light damaged the light reactions of photosynthesis, while chilling in the dark did not.

¹ Supported by National Science Foundation grants PCM-8404911 to AWN and BSR 83-14925 to the Duke University Phytotron.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. W. Hogewoning and J. Harbinson Insights on the development, kinetics, and variation of photoinhibition using chlorophyll fluorescence imaging of a chilled, variegated leaf J. Exp. Bot., February 1, 2007; 58(3): 453 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]