Advertisement

Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 499–509 | Cite as

Evaluation of temperature stress tolerance in cultivated and wild tomatoes using photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence

  • Rong Zhou
  • Zhen Wu
  • Xu Wang
  • Eva Rosenqvist
  • Yinlei Wang
  • Tongmin Zhao
  • Carl-Otto Ottosen
Research Report Cultivation Physiology
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

Tomato cultivation at lower or higher temperatures than the optimum negatively affects plant growth and development. Large differences in abiotic stress tolerance have been found between Solanum lycopersicum and wild tomato species. Our aim was to compare temperature stress tolerance in cultivated and wild tomato genotypes to identify cold- and heat-tolerant tomatoes for further utilization in tomato breeding. The maintained net photosynthetic rate (PN) and chlorophyll fluorescence was related to the tolerance of tomatoes at temperature stress. The PN and chlorophyll fluorescence of one cultivated tomato (Ly from S. lycopersicum) and six wild tomatoes genotypes (Ha from Solanum habrochaites, Pe from Solanum pennellii, Pi1 and Pi2 from Solanum pimpinellifolium, Pr1 and Pr2 from Solanum peruvianum) grown at low (12 °C) and high (33 °C) temperatures were compared. The PN of four tomato genotypes during temperature stress were lower than the control, but not in Pe, Pr1, and Pr2. The maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm) of the cultivated tomatoes was lower at both 12 and 33 °C than the control using Handy PEA, whereas Fv/Fm using MINI-PAM was lower only at 12 °C. The chlorophyll fluorescence OJIP transient (OJIP curve) revealed differences between temperature stress responses and tomato genotype. With the exception of Pr2, the Fv/Fm in wild tomatoes was unaffected by temperature stress; however, they still maintained clear genotype differences for other physiological traits such as PN, quantum yield of PSII (Fq′/Fm′), electron transport rate, non-photochemical quenching, and the fraction of open PSII centers (qL). These results indicated that the wild tomato varieties Pe and Pr1 had the highest temperature stress tolerance, while the cultivated species was the more sensitive to temperature stress in comparison. In general, the wild tomato genotypes were more tolerant to both cold and heat stress than the cultivated tomato, suggesting that these wild species could be used to uncover underlying mechanisms of temperature stress tolerance and will be promising sources of genetic variability for temperature stress tolerance in breeding programs.

Keywords

Tomato Low temperature High temperature Photosynthesis Chlorophyll fluorescence 

Abbreviation

PSII

Photosystem II

PN

Net photosynthetic rate

gs

Stomatal conductance

E

Transpiration rate

Ci

Intracellular CO2 concentration

Fv/Fm

Maximum quantum efficiency of PSII

Fv/Fo

Maximum primary yield of photochemistry of PSII

ΦPSII

Quantum yield of PSII

ETR

Electron transport rate

NPQ

Non-photochemical quenching

qL

Fraction of open PSII centers

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31601745), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20160579) and ERDF EU project GreenGrowing. We acknowledge Ms. Ruth Nielsen and Xiaqing Yu for their assistance with the experiment.

Author’s contribution

RZ, CO and TZ designed the experiment, RZ performed the experiment, RZ and XW analyzed the data. RZ wrote the manuscript. ZW, XW, ER, YW, TZ, and CO provided valuable comments for the revision of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical statement

The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration and has not been published previously.

References

  1. Allen DJ, Ort DR (2001) Impacts of chilling temperatures on photosynthesis in warm-climate plants. Trends Plant Sci 6:36–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker NR (2008) Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker NR, Rosenqvist E (2004) Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. J Exp Bot 55:1607–1621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barten JHM, Scott JW, Kedar N, Elkind Y (1992) Low temperatures induce rough blossom-end scarring of tomato fruit during early flower development. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 117:298–303Google Scholar
  5. Bedinger PA, Chetelat RT, McClure B, Moyle LC, Rose JK, Stack SM, van der Knaap E, Baek YS et al (2011) Interspecific reproductive barriers in the tomato clade: opportunities to decipher mechanisms of reproductive isolation. Sex Plant Reprod 24:171–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilger W, Björkman O (1990) Role of the xanthophyll cycle in photoprotection elucidated by measurements of light-induced absorbance changes, fluorescence and photosynthesis in leaves of Hedera canariensis. Photosynth Res 25:173–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bita CE, Gerats T (2013) Plant tolerance to high temperature in a changing environment: scientific fundamentals and production of heat stress-tolerant crops. Front Plant Sci 4:273–290CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolger A, Scossa F, Bolger ME, Lanz C, Maumus F, Tohge T, Quesneville H, Alseekh S et al (2014) The genome of the stress-tolerant wild tomato species Solanum pennellii. Nat Genet 46:1034–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Caemmerer SV, Farquhar GD (1981) Some relationships between the biochemistry of photosynthesis and the gas exchange of leaves. Planta 153:376–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camejo D, Rodríguez P, Angeles Morales M, Dell’Amico JM, Torrecillas A, Alarcón JJ (2005) High temperature effects on photosynthetic activity of two tomato cultivars with different heat susceptibility. J Plant Physiol 162:281–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cao X, Jiang F, Wang X, Zang Y, Wu Z (2015) Comprehensive evaluation and screening for chilling-tolerance in tomato lines at the seedling stage. Euphytica 205:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chinnusamy V, Zhu J, Zhu JK (2007) Cold stress regulation of gene expression in plants. Trends Plant Sci 12:444–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Feuillet C, Langridge P, Waugh R (2008) Cereal breeding takes a walk on the wild side. Trends Genet 24:24–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Foolad MR, Zhang LP, Subbiah P (2003) Genetics of drought tolerance during seed germination in tomato: inheritance and QTL mapping. Genome 46:536–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 990:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gur A, Zamir D (2004) Unused natural variation can lift yield barriers in plant breeding. PLoS Biol 2:e245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hajjar R, Hodgkin T (2007) The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica 156:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanson PM, Sitathani K, Sadashiva AT, Yang RY, Graham E, Ledesma D (2007) Performance of Solanum habrochaites LA1777 introgression line hybrids for marketable tomato fruit yield in Asia. Euphytica 158:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heidarvand L, Amiri RM (2010) What happens in plant molecular responses to cold stress? Acta Physiol Plant 32:419–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inci NE, Toker C (2011) Screening and selection of faba beans (Vicia faba L.) for cold tolerance and comparison to wild relatives. Genet Resour Crop Evol 58:1169–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. İşeri ÖD, Körpe DA, Sahin FI, Haberal M (2013) Hydrogen peroxide pretreatment of roots enhanced oxidative stress response of tomato under cold stress. Acta Physiol Plant 35:1905–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knapp S, Spooner DM, Peralta I (2009) Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Syst Bot 84:1–186Google Scholar
  23. Mittler R, Finka A, Goloubinoff P (2012) How do plants feel the heat? Trends Biochem Sci 37:118–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nankishore A, Farrell AD (2016) The response of contrasting tomato genotypes to combined heat and drought stress. J Plant Physiol 202:75–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nevo E, Chen G (2010) Drought and salt tolerances in wild relatives for wheat and barley improvement. Plant Cell Environ 33:670–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ogweno JO, Song XS, Shi K, Hu WH, Mao WH, Zhou YH, Yu JQ, Nogués S (2008) Brassinosteroids alleviate heat-induced inhibition of photosynthesis by increasing carboxylation efficiency and enhancing antioxidant systems in Lycopersicon esculentum. J Plant Growth Regul 27:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park EJ, Jeknic Z, Chen TH (2006) Exogenous application of glycinebetaine increases chilling tolerance in tomato plants. Plant Cell Physiol 47:706–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pressman E, Peet MM, Pharr DM (2002) The effect of heat stress on tomato pollen characteristics is associated with changes in carbohydrate concentration in the developing anthers. Ann Bot 90:631CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Rick CM (1976) Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum (Solanaceae). In: Simmonds NW (ed) Evolution of crop plants. Longman Group Ltd., London, pp 268–273Google Scholar
  30. Rick CM, Tanksley SD (1981) Genetic variation in Solanum pennellii: comparisons with two other sympatric tomato species. Plant Syst Evol 139:11–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rivero RM, Mestre TC, Mittler R, Rubio F, Garcia-Sanchez F, Martinez V (2014) The combined effect of salinity and heat reveals a specific physiological, biochemical and molecular response in tomato plants. Plant Cell Environ 37:1059–1073CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Roy SJ, Tucker EJ, Tester M (2011) Genetic analysis of abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:232–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharma DK, Andersen SB, Ottosen CO, Rosenqvist E (2014) Wheat cultivars selected for high Fv/Fm under heat stress maintain high photosynthesis, total chlorophyll, stomatal conductance, transpiration and dry matter. Physiol Planta 153:284–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tester M, Langridge P (2010) Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 327:818–822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams CE, Clair DA (1993) Phenetic relationships and levels of variability detected by restriction fragment length polymorphism and random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of cultivated and wild accessions of Lycopersicon esculentum. Genome 36:619–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang J, Jiang XD, Li TL, Cao XJ (2014) Photosynthesis and ultrastructure of photosynthetic apparatus in tomato leaves under elevated temperature. Photosynthetica 52:430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou R, Yu X, Kjær KH, Rosenqvist E, Ottosen CO, Wu Z (2015a) Screening and validation of tomato genotypes under heat stress using Fv/Fm to reveal the physiological mechanism of heat tolerance. Environ Exp Bot 118:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou R, Wu Z, Cao X, Jiang F (2015b) Genetic diversity of cultivated and wild tomatoes revealed by morphological traits and SSR markers. Genet Mol Res 14:13868–13879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhou R, Kjær KH, Rosenqvist E, Yu X, Wu Z, Ottosen CO (2016) Physiological response to heat stress during seedling and anthesis stage in tomato genotypes differing in heat tolerance. J Agron Crop Sci 203:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhou R, Yu X, Ottosen CO, Rosenqvist E, Zhao L, Wang Y, Yu W, Zhao T et al (2017) Drought stress had a predominant effect over heat stress on three tomato cultivars subjected to combined stress. BMC Plant Biol 17:24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rong Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhen Wu
    • 3
  • Xu Wang
    • 3
  • Eva Rosenqvist
    • 4
  • Yinlei Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tongmin Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carl-Otto Ottosen
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Vegetable CropJiangsu Province Academy of Agricultural ScienceNanjingChina
  2. 2.Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Horticultural Crop Genetic ImprovementNanjingChina
  3. 3.College of HorticultureNanjing Agricultural UniversityNanjingChina
  4. 4.Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenTaastrupDenmark
  5. 5.Department of Food ScienceAarhus UniversityAarslevDenmark

Personalised recommendations