Response of Native and Non-Native Subarctic Plant Species to Continuous Illumination by Natural and Artificial Light

Abstract

This study addressed the following questions: How does continuous lighting (CL) impact plant physiology, and photosynthetic and stress responses? Does the impact of CL depend on the source of the light and other environmental factors (natural vs. artificial)? Do responses to CL differ for native and non-native plant species in the subarctic region and, if differences exist, what physiological reasons might they be associated with them? Experiments were conducted with three plants native to the subarctic region (Geranium sylvaticum L., Geum rivale L., Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeusch.) and three non-native plant species (Geranium himalayense Klotzsch, Geum coccineum Sibth. and Sm., Potentilla atrosanguinea Loddiges ex D. Don) introduced in the Polar-Alpine Botanic Garden (KPABG, 67°38′ N). The experimental groups included three species pairs exposed to (1) a natural 16 h photoperiod, (2) natural CL, (3) an artificial 16 h photoperiod and (4) artificial CL. In the natural environment, measurements of physiological and biochemical parameters were carried out at the peak of the polar day (at the end of June), when the plants were illuminated continuously, and in the second week of August, when the day length was about 16 h. Th experiments with artificial lighting were conducted in climate chambers where plants were exposed to 16 h or 24 h photoperiods for two weeks. Other parameters (light intensity, spectrum composition, temperature and air humidity) were held constant. The obtained results have shown that plants lack specific mechanisms of tolerance to CL. The protective responses are non-specific and induced by developing photo-oxidative stress. In climate chambers, under constant environmental conditions artificial CL causes leaf injuries due to oxidative stress, the main cause of which is circadian asynchrony. In nature, plants are not photodamaged during the polar day, as endogenous rhythms are maintained due to daily fluctuations of several environmental factors (light intensity, spectral distribution, temperature and air humidity). The obtained data show that among possible non-specific protective mechanisms, plants use flavonoids to neutralize the excess ROS generated under CL. In local subarctic plants, their photoprotective role is significantly higher than in non-native introduced plant species.

Keywords

• subarctic
• native
• non-native plants
• photoperiod
• continuous lighting
• natural and artificial light