Effect of low temperature and light intensity on the tomato flower components controlling longistyly.

Atanassova, B.

The manifestation of longistyly in the tomato depends to a considerable extent on environmental conditions (1,2,3). Investigations concerning the effect of low light intensity and low temperature on the length of anthers and styles (the two flower components conditioning longistyly) were carried out. Two longistylye lines (GCR-66 and Dai-ms-35) in which longistyly is due to partial stamen deformation and two lines with normal flowers (line 7/3 and Standart) were used., The plants were placed in climate chambers several days before anthesis and remained there for a week. The experiments aiming to assess the effect of light intensity were conducted under conditions of 12 hr illumination (about 3.0 mgj/m^2^), 25-26 deg. C day temperature and 14-15 deg. C night temperature while those planned to examine the effect of low temperatures took place under the same light regime and 7 deg. C daily temperatures. Results obtained indicate that both factors have no influence on anther length since the differences observed were statistically not significant.

Their effect on style length, however, was considerable in all cultivars and lines (Table 1). The effect of light only lasted 18-20 days, while that of low temperature 22-28 days past treatment.

Table 1. Effect of temperature and light intensity on the length of tomato flower styles 15 days after treatment.

______________________________________________________________________
Lines and   Control (glass-    Low light      Low temper-
cultivars   house conditions)  intensity      ature
            (mm)               (mm)             (mm)
______________________________________________________________________
GCR-66      13.7 +/-0.2      12.8 +/- 0.1   11.8 +/- 0.3
Line 7/3    7.2 +/- 0.2       6.3 +/- 0.2    6.2 +/- 0.1
Standart    7.2 +/- 0.3       6.4 +/- 0.3    6.2 +/- 0.3
Dai-ms-35   7.5 +/- 0.2       6.3 +/- 0.1    5.8 +/- 0.1
______________________________________________________________________
Literature cited:

1. Coyne, D. 1968. HortScience 3:39.

2. El Ahmadi, A.B. 1979. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(5):686-691.

3. Howlett, F.S. 1939. J. Agric. Res. 58:79-117.

Acknowledgments. The author is grateful to Melle J. Philouze and to colleagues of the Station d'Amelioration des Plantes Maraicheres-Monfavet-Avignon-France, who provided the opportunity and offered their assistance for these investigations.