Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1988 Jan;86(1):143-6.
doi: 10.1104/pp.86.1.143.

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

Affiliations

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

T C Peeler et al. Plant Physiol. 1988 Jan.

Abstract

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 degrees C) for different lengths of time in the dark or light. Following a 1 hour recovery period at 25 degrees C, photosynthetic activity was measured by gas exchange (CO(2) uptake and H(2)O 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 CO(2) fixation, increased internal leaf CO(2) 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Plant Physiol. 1983 Nov;73(3):534-41 - PubMed
    1. Plant Physiol. 1981 Aug;68(2):329-34 - PubMed
    1. Plant Physiol. 1988 Jan;86(1):147-51 - PubMed
    1. Plant Physiol. 1971 May;47(5):713-8 - PubMed
    1. Plant Physiol. 1985 Mar;77(3):740-6 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources