Biological Rhythm Research

ISSN: 0929-1016 (Print) 1744-4179 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nbrr20

Effect street light pollution on the photosynthetic

efficiency of different plants

Neelima Meravi & Santosh Kumar Prajapati

To cite this article: Neelima Meravi & Santosh Kumar Prajapati (2020) Effect street light pollution
on the photosynthetic efficiency of different plants, Biological Rhythm Research, 51:1, 67-75, DOI:
10.1080/09291016.2018.1518206

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2018.1518206

Published online: 08 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 124

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nbrr20
BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH
2020, VOL. 51, NO. 1, 67–75
https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2018.1518206

ARTICLE

Effect street light pollution on the photosynthetic efficiency

of different plants
Neelima Meravi and Santosh Kumar Prajapati
Department of Botany, School of Life Sciences, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, C.G, Bilaspur, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present study was conducted to study the effect of light Received 14 August 2018
pollution on the photosynthetic efficiency of plants growing near Accepted 23 August 2018
to street light. The photosynthetic parameters Fv/Fm (Fm - Fo/Fm); KEYWORDS
maximum photochemical quantum yield of PS II (photosystem II), Light pollution; Fv/Fm; Y
Y II (photochemical quantum yield of photosystem II), Y (NPQ), Y (NPQ); Y (NO); Fluorescence
(NO) were recorded with the help of JUNIOR-PAM, Chlorophyll
Fluorometer, Heinz Walz GmbH, Germany. It was observed that
various parameters were adversely affected and the observed
values show that plants is under some sort of stress which may
be disturbing their normal physiological processes.

1. Introduction
The biological world is organized largely by natural light (Ragni and D’Alcalà 2004;
Foster and Roenneberg 2008; Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2010). Artificial lighting is a
widespread feature of human settlement and transport networks (Boyce 2003;
Schreuder 2010). The increase of electrical lighting in particular has provided a major
disturbance to natural light regimes, and in effect arguably a rather new type of
environmental pressure, disturbing natural cycles of light and darkness (Verheijen
1958, 1985; Outen 1998; Health Council of the Netherlands 2000; Longcore and Rich
2004; Rich and Longcore 2006a; Navara and Nelson 2007; Hölker et al. 2010a, 2010b;
Bruce-White and Shardlow 2011; Perkin et al. 2011). Ethylene gas leaked from street
lights have been shown for stunting of growth, twisting of plants, and abnormal
thickening of stems (Neljubov 1901). Generally the highest artificial light intensities are
experienced in the close proximity (40–50 cm) of light sources.
There are studies by researchers on the effects of manmade manipulations of light
conditions on plants, as early as 17th and 18th centuries (Hunt 1844, 1854; Darwin 1881),
and it is well proven that intermittent light during night, even of short duration or at low
intensities, can have marked physiological effects (Smith 1982). Artificial lighting is of various
types and has unique spectral signatures, each emitting light at varying intensities over a
distinctive range of wavelengths (Darko et al. 2014). The ecological and evolutionary
processes are influenced by the increasing spatial, temporal, and spectral distribution of
night-time light pollution (Navara and Nelson 2007; van Langevelde et al. 2011). The light

CONTACT Santosh Kumar Prajapati sntshprjpt@rediffmail.com Department of Botany, School of Life Sciences,
Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, C.G., 495009
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
68 N. MERAVI AND S. KUMAR PRAJAPATI

and dark hours can act as a resource for organisms for various physiological processes
(Kronfeld-Schor and Dayan 2003; Gerrish et al. 2009) and balance between hours of light and
of darkness constrains the time available for these processes and therefore changes in the
availability of light and dark hours can have positive or negative effects.
The PAR (photosynthetically active radiation: wavelengths between 400 and 700 nm)
associated with night-time light pollution (street lights) are extremely low relative to
daylight (<0.5 µmol m−2 s−1 compared with between 100 and 2000 µmol m−2 s−1 for
daylight) and therefore effect of light pollution on net carbon fixation is likely to be
negligible in most cases. However, theoretically if leaves are close enough to light
sources, it is sufficient for net carbon fixation (Raven and Cockell 2006).
In vascular plants, the photoreceptors called phytochromes exist in two photointer-
convertible forms—a biologically inactive red-light-absorbing form (Pr) which upon
absorption of red light is converted to a biologically active form (Pfr). Pfr is converted
back to Pr on absorbing far-red light, so under steady light of a given red/far-red ratio
the active form of phytochrome reaches equilibrium (Lin 2000; Neff et al. 2000; Smith
2000). The phytochrome system has been shown to influence vegetative growth, the
timing of germination, flowering, bud opening and dormancy, and senescence and also
the distribution of resources to roots, stems, and leaves (Smith 2000). Strasser et al.
(1996) have shown how to work without stress but with fluorescence: A protocol of a
course of held at the University of Liege for the European Science Foundation in
Biophysics of Photosynthesis.

2. Materials and methods

Seven tree species that were taken for the present study (shown in Table 1) were
growing along the streets of Guru Ghasidas University and these trees were able to
reach close to street light and more importantly these species are common in area. The
coordinates of sampling place is 22.1306° N, 82.1420° E. Healthy leaf (fully expanded and
mature leaf) of each plant (three leaves were taken from one plant of a species and total
three individuals of a species were taken, i.e. a total of nine leaves were used for
measurement from each plant species) species growing close to street lamps were
taken for fluorescence measurements (leaves are receiving 340–360 lx). These seven
plants were continuously exposed to light, sunlight during day hours and street light
during dark hours.
Similarly, three leaves were taken from one plant of a species growing away from
street light (10 m away) and a total three individuals of a species were taken, i.e. a total
of nine leaves were used for fluorescence measurement from each plant species (leaves

Table 1. List of plant species taken for fluorescence measurement in the present study.
Sl no Name Family Habit
1 Calotropis procera Asclepiadacea Shrub
2 Butea monosperma Papilionaceae Tree
3 Delbergia sissoo Papilionaceae Tree
4 Azadirachta indica Meliaceae Tree
5 Plumeria rubra Apocynaceae Soft wood tree
6 Eucalyptus globulus Myrtacea Tree
7 Bauhinia purpurea Caesalpiniaceae Tree
 BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH 69

were not exposed to light during dark hours). Only the outermost leaves of the canopy
getting direct sunlight were taken. All the leaves were collected from south side of tree.
Three different individuals of a species growing close to street light and away from
street light were analyzed and therefore a total of 126 leaves from 42 individuals of
seven species were used for present study.
All measurement started with a leaf which has been acclimated to dark or dim light
conditions for 30 min. With the dark acclimated leaf kept in the magnetic leaf clip, the Fo
fluorescence level was not allowed to exceed 600 counts to avoid signal saturation
during Fo, Fm determination. Various photosynthetic parameters Fv/Fm = Fm - Fo/Fm
(maximum photochemical quantum yield of photosystem II), YII = F’m - F’/F’m (photo-
chemical quantum yield of photosystem II), Y(NPQ) = 1-Y II-Y (NO), Y(NO) = 1/NPQ + 1 +
qL.(Fm/F0 - 1) were recorded with the help of JUNIOR-PAM, Chlorophyll Fluorometer,
Heinz Walz GmbH, Germany.
Light sources used in instrument are given below:
Measuring light: Blue LED (wavelength of maximum emission: 450 nm). Two modula-
tion frequencies (5 and 100 Hz).
Actinic light: Blue LED (wavelength of maximum emission: 450 nm). Photon flux
densities at 1 mm distance from the tip of the 400 mm JUNIOR PAM light guide: 25–
1500 μmol photons/(m2*s), adjustable at 12 different levels.
Far red light: LED with 730 nm maximum emission wavelength for selective excitation
of photosystem I.
Saturating pulses: Blue LED (wavelength of maximum emission: 450 nm). Maximum
photon flux density 10,000 μmol photons/(m2*s) at 1 mm distance from the tip of the
400 mm JUNIOR-PAM light guide and Software used was WinControl-3 software for PAM
fluorometers.

3. Results
The fluorescence measurement of plant species leaves growing close to street light
(experiencing light pollution) and plant species leaves growing away from street light
(no light pollution) is given in Figures 1–4. Figure 1 shows the comparison between of
Fv/Fm values of different plant species exposed to street light (SL) and plants that were
present away from street light (ASL). The Fv/Fm value gives an indication of stress level
of the plants and it also indirectly tells about maximum photochemical quantum yield of
PS II (photosystem II). It is evident from the figure that all plant species that were
exposed to street light (SL) have lower Fv/Fm value as compared to similar plant species
that were present away from street light (ASL). It means that when dark hours (which are
resource for plants) are eliminated by continuous street light exposure, plants experi-
ence stress. This is also confirmed by Pearson correlation coefficient value (0.92)
between Fv/Fm values of plants exposed to street light and plants away from street
light which is good. The street light also affected the photochemical quantum yield of
photosystem II (Y II). It is clear from Figure 2 that Y II values of different plant species
exposed to street light (SL) were lesser than Y II values of similar plant species growing
away from street light (ASL). The Pearson correlation coefficient value (0.98) between Y II
(SL) and Y II (ASL) is also significant. It means that plant species growing close to street
lamps will have reduced photochemical efficiency of photosystem II. The two-tailed P
70 N. MERAVI AND S. KUMAR PRAJAPATI

0.9 SL Fv/Fm
0.8
0.7 ASL
0.6 Fv/Fm
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure 1. Comparison of Fv/Fm values of different plant species growing near to street light (SL) and
away from street light (ASL).
ϒ SL Fv/Fm = Fv/Fm value of plant species growing near to street light.
ϒ ASL Fv/Fm = Fv/Fm value of plant species growing away from street light.

0.8
SL Y II
0.7
0.6 ASL Y II
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure 2. Comparison of Y II values of different plant species growing near to street light (SL) and
away from street light (ASL).
ϒ SL Y II = Y II value of plant species growing near to street light.
ϒ ASL Y II = Y II value of plant species growing away from street light.

value is less than 0.05 for above two results which is significant for biological experi-
ments. The t score was 2.81 at d.f. 8 and the P value is 0.023198 which shows that results
are significant at P < 0.05.
Y (NPQ) estimates the quantum yield of nonphotochemical fluorescence quenching due
to downregulation of the light-harvesting function and quantify the fraction of excitation
 BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH 71

0.5
0.45 SL Y (NPQ)

0.4
ASL Y (NPQ)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Figure 3. Comparison of Y (NPQ) values of different plant species growing near to street light (SL)
and away from street light (ASL).
ϒ SL Y (NPQ) = Y (NPQ) value of plant species growing near to street light.
ϒ Y (NPQ) = Y (NPQ) value of plant species growing away from street light.

energy which is dissipated as heat via photoprotective mechanism. It is clear from Figure 3
that Y (NPQ) value was lower for all the plant species that were exposed to street light as
compared to Y (NPQ) value for similar plant species growing away from street light (ASL). It
indicates that photoprotective mechanism of plant species that were exposed to street
light is also adversely affected and hence may aggravate the stress level of plants. It is
supported by Pearson correlation coefficient value (0.99) between Y NPQ (SL) and Y NPQ
(ASL). Y (NO) estimates the quantum yield of nonphotochemical fluorescence quenching
other than that caused by downregulation of the light-harvesting function and also
calculates the yield of all other nonphotochemical losses except excitation energy which
is dissipated as heat via photoprotective mechanism. Figure 4 clearly indicates that Y (NO)
values for plants exposed to street light was higher than the Y (NO) values similar plant
species that were growing away from street light. It means plants exposed to street will
have more nonphotochemical losses and ultimately reduced photochemistry. The Pearson
correlation coefficient value (0.96) between Y NO (SL) and Y NO (ASL) supports the present
phenomenon. The two-tailed P value (<0.05) is significant for Y NPQ and Y NO measure-
ments results which is significant and supports the findings. The t score was 2.83 at d.f. 8
and the P value is 0.023199 which shows that results are significant at P < 0.05.

4. Discussion
The present experiment conducted gives an indication that when plants are exposed to
continuous light then there is change in their photosynthetic efficiency because
72 N. MERAVI AND S. KUMAR PRAJAPATI

0.6
SL Y (NO)
0.5
ASL Y (NO)
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 4. Comparison of Y (NO) values of different plant species growing near to street light (SL) and
away from street light (ASL).
ϒ Y (NO) = Y (NO) value of plant species growing near to street light.
ϒY (NO) = Y (NO) value of plant species growing away from street light.

continuous periods of darkness are critical for certain processes controlling repair and
recovery of physiological function for plants and therefore darkness can be seen as a
resource for physiological activity. The route, period, and spectral uniqueness of natural
light are commonly used by organisms as sources of information and characteristics of
their natural surroundings (Neff et al. 2000; Ragni and D’Alcalà 2004). Also in higher
plants the phytochromes, which are present in two photo interconvertible forms,
biologically inactive red-light-absorbing form (Pr) which upon absorption of red light
is converted to a biologically active form (Pfr). Pfr is again converted back to Pr after
absorption of far-red light (Lin 2000; Neff et al. 2000; Smith 2000). This phytochrome
system plays an important role in detecting shade and light hours, and has been shown
to influence vegetative growth and architecture, the timing of germination, flowering,
bud burst and dormancy and senescence, and the allocation of resources to roots,
stems, and leaves (Smith 2000). The street light causes light pollution and alters the
dark hour which is a resource for the plants. Sodium lamps have relatively high fluence
and high photosynthetically active radiations (PARs) efficiency (max. 40%) and affects
photosynthesis (Martineau et al. 2012).
It has been observed that increase in ozone injury in plants at high latitudes is due to
dim nocturnal light in the northern Arctic summer that inhibits recovery from leaf
damage caused by atmospheric ozone in subterranean clover Trifolium subterraneum
(Vollsnes et al. 2009). A similar result was found in red clover Trifolium pretense
(Futsaether et al. 2009). While the patterns of anthropogenic light pollution and ozone
pollution are spatially correlated on a global scale (Cinzano et al. 2001; Ashmore 2005),
 BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH 73

the extent of damage due to low-intensity night-time light could affect repair and
recovery from ozone damage requires more and further investigation. Photoperiod
changes as a result of artificial lighting during night, has consequences for a variety of
physiological character. Matzke (1936) has observed that certain species of deciduous
tree maintain their leaves for longer in autumn in the vicinity of street lights, potentially
leaving them exposed to higher rates of frost damage in late autumn and winter. Other
experiments in agricultural systems have shown a broad range of responses to night-
time lighting that depends both on the species and the spectral composition of the light
source and included delay and promotion of flowering, and enhanced vegetative
growth (Cathey and Campbell 1975; Kristiansen 1988). Therefore, it can be concluded
from the present study that street lights causes light pollution which affects the photo-
synthetic efficiency of that may result in reduced yield of plants.

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Department of Botany, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya for providing
necessary facilities. The authors are thankful to UGC, New Delhi for financial assistance in the form
of UGC MRP [F no.- 41-428/2012 (SR)] and Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship [RGNF-2013-14 ST-
CHH-39813].

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The authors are thankful to UGC, New Delhi for financial assistance in the form of UGC MRP [F no.-
41-428/2012 (SR)].

References
Ashmore MR. 2005. Assessing the future global impacts of ozone on vegetation. Plant Cell Environ.
28:949–964.
Boyce PR. 2003. Human factors in lighting. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM. 2010. Light, time, and the physiology of biotic response to rapid
climate change in animals. Annu Rev Physiol. 72:147–166.
Bruce-White C, Shardlow M. 2011. A review of the impact of artificial light on invertebrates.
Peterborough: Buglife.
Cathey AR, Campbell LE. 1975. Effectiveness of five vision-lighting sources on photo-regulation of
22 species of ornamental plants. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 100:65–71.
Cinzano P, Falchi F, Elvidge CD. 2001. The first World atlas of the artificial night sky brightness.
Mon Not R Astron Soc. 328:689–707.
Darko E, Heydarizadeh P, Schoefs B, Sabzalian MR. 2014. Photosynthesis under artificial light: the
shift in primary and secondary metabolism. Phil Trans R Soc B. 369:20130243.
Darwin C. 1881. The power of movement in plants. New York (NY): D. Appleton and Company.
Foster RG, Roenneberg T. 2008. Human responses to the geophysical daily, annual and lunar
cycles. Curr Biol. 18:R784–R794.
74 N. MERAVI AND S. KUMAR PRAJAPATI

Futsaether C, Vollsnes A, Kruse OMO, Otterholt E, Kvaal K, Eriksen AB. 2009. Effects of the Nordic
photoperiod on ozone sensitivity and repair in different clover species studied using infrared
imaging. Ambio. 38:437–443.
Gerrish GA, Morin JG, Rivers TJ, Patrawala Z. 2009. Darkness as an ecological resource: the role of
light in partitioning the nocturnal niche. Oecologia. 160:525–536.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2000). Impact of Outdoor Lighting on Man and Nature
Publication No. 2000/25E. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands.
Hölker F, Moss T, Griefahn B, Kloas W, Voigt CC, Henckel D, Hänel A, Kappeler PM, Völker S,
Schwope A, et al. 2010a. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light
pollution policy. Ecol Soc. 15:13.
Hölker F, Wolter C, Perkin EK, Tockner K. 2010b. Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends Ecol
Evol. 25:681–682.
Hunt R. 1844. Researches on light: an examination of all the phenomena connected with the
chemical and molecular changes produced by the influence of the solar rays. London (UK):
Longman, Brown Green and Longmans.
Hunt R. 1854. Researches on light in its chemical relations: embracing a consideration of all the
photographic processes. London (UK): Longman, Brown Green and Longmans.
Raven JA, Cockell CS. 2006. Influence on photosynthesis of starlight, moonlight, planetlight and
light pollution (reflections on photosynthetically active radiation in the universe). Astrobiology.
6:668–675.
Kristiansen K. 1988. Light quality regulates flower initiation, differentiation and development of
Campanula carpatica Jacq. ‘Karl Forster’. Scientia Horticulturae. 35:275–283.
Kronfeld-Schor N, Dayan T. 2003. Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Annu Rev Ecol Evol
Syst. 34:153–181.
Lin C. 2000. Photoreceptors and regulation of flowering time. Plant Physiol. 123:39–50.
Longcore T, Rich C. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ. 2:191–198.
Martineau V, Lefsrud M, Naznin MT. 2012. Comparison of light-emitting diode and high pressure
sodium light treatments for hydroponics growth of Boston lettuce. Hort Sci. 47:477–482.
Matzke EB. 1936. The effect of street lights in delaying leaf-fall in certain trees. Am J Bot. 23:446–452.
Navara KJ, Nelson RJ. 2007. The dark side of light at night: physiological, epidemiological and
ecological consequences. J Pineal Res. 34:215–224.
Neff MM, Fankhauser C, Chory J. 2000. Light: an indicator of time and place. Genes Dev. 14:257–271.
Neljubov D. 1901. Uber die horizontale Nutation der Stengel von Pisum sativum und einiger
anderen Pflanzen. Beih Bot Zentralbl. 10:128–139.
Outen AR. 1998. The possible ecological implications of artificial lighting. Hertfordshire:
Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre.
Perkin EK, Hölker F, Richardson JS, Sadler JP, Wolter C, Tockner K. 2011. The influence of artificial light
on stream and riparian ecosystems: questions, challenges, and perspectives. Ecosphere. 2:122.
Ragni M, D’Alcalà MR. 2004. Light as an information carrier underwater. J Plankton Res. 26:433–443.
Rich C, Longcore T. 2006a. Introduction. In: Rich C, Longcore T, editors. Ecological consequences of
artificial night lighting. Washington: Island Press; p. 1–13.
Schreuder D. 2010. Outdoor lighting: physics, vision and perception. New York (NY): Springer-
Verlag.
Smith H. 1982. Light quality, photoperception and plant strategy. Annu Rev Plant Physiol. 33:481–518.
Smith H. 2000. Phytochromes and light signal perception by plants – an emerging synthesis.
Nature. 407:585–591.
Strasser RJ, Eggenberg P, Strasser BJ. 1996. How to work without stress but with fluorescence: a
protocol of a course of the european science foundation in biophysics of photosynthesis at the
university of liege. Bulletin De La Societe Royale Des Sciences De Liege. 65(4–5):330–349.
van Langevelde F, Ettema JA, Donners M, WallisDeVries MF, Groenendijk D. 2011. Effect of spectral
composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biol Conserv. 144:2274–2281.
Verheijen FJ. 1958. The mechanisms of the trapping effect of artificial light sources on animals.
Archives Néerlandaises De Zoologie. 13:1–107.
 BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH 75

Verheijen FJ. 1985. Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with.
Incidents, causations, remedies. Exp Biol. 1985:1–18.
Vollsnes AV, Eriksen AB, Otterholt E, Kvaal K, Oxaal U, Futsaether CM. 2009. Visible foliar injury and
infrared imaging show that daylength affects short-term recovery after ozone stress in Trifolium
subterraneum. J Exp Bot. 60:3677–3686.