Overhead supplemental far-red light stimulates tomato growth under intra-canopy lighting with LEDs
|
摘要
Far-red(FR) light regulates phytochrome-mediated morphological and physiological plant responses.This study aims to investigate how greenhouse tomato morphology and production response to different durations of FR light during daytime and at the end of day(EOD).High-wire tomato plants were grown under intra-canopy lighting consisting of red(peak wavelength at 640 nm) and blue(peak wavelength at 450 nm) light-emitting diodes(LEDs) with photosynthetic photon flux density(PPFD) of 144 μmol m–2 s–1 at 10 cm away from the lamps,and combined with overhead supplemental FR light(peak wavelength at 735 nm) with PPFD of 43 μmol m–2 s–1 at 20 cm below the lamps.Plants were exposed to three durations of FR supplemental lighting including: 06:00–18:00(FR12),18:00–19:30(EOD-FR1.5),18:00–18:30(EOD-FR0.5),and control that without supplemental FR light.The results showed that supplemental FR light significantly stimulated stem elongation thereby resulting in longer plants compared with the control.Moreover,FR light altered leaf morphology toward higher leaf length/width ratio and larger leaf area.The altered plant architecture in FR supplemented plants led to a more homogeneous light distribution inside the canopy.Total plant biomass was increased by 9–16% under supplemental FR light in comparison with control,which led to 7–12% increase in ripe fruit yield.Soluble sugar content of the ripe tomato fruit was slightly decreased by longer exposure of the plants to FR light.Dry matter partitioning to different plant organs were not substantially affected by the FR light treatments.No significant differences were observed among the three FR light treatments in plant morphology as well as yield and biomass production.We conclude that under intra-canopy lighting,overhead supplemental FR light stimulates tomato growth and production.And supplementary of EOD-FR0.5 is more favorable,as it consumes less electricity but induces similar effects on plant morphology and yield.
Far-red(FR) light regulates phytochrome-mediated morphological and physiological plant responses.This study aims to investigate how greenhouse tomato morphology and production response to different durations of FR light during daytime and at the end of day(EOD).High-wire tomato plants were grown under intra-canopy lighting consisting of red(peak wavelength at 640 nm) and blue(peak wavelength at 450 nm) light-emitting diodes(LEDs) with photosynthetic photon flux density(PPFD) of 144 μmol m–2 s–1 at 10 cm away from the lamps,and combined with overhead supplemental FR light(peak wavelength at 735 nm) with PPFD of 43 μmol m–2 s–1 at 20 cm below the lamps.Plants were exposed to three durations of FR supplemental lighting including: 06:00–18:00(FR12),18:00–19:30(EOD-FR1.5),18:00–18:30(EOD-FR0.5),and control that without supplemental FR light.The results showed that supplemental FR light significantly stimulated stem elongation thereby resulting in longer plants compared with the control.Moreover,FR light altered leaf morphology toward higher leaf length/width ratio and larger leaf area.The altered plant architecture in FR supplemented plants led to a more homogeneous light distribution inside the canopy.Total plant biomass was increased by 9–16% under supplemental FR light in comparison with control,which led to 7–12% increase in ripe fruit yield.Soluble sugar content of the ripe tomato fruit was slightly decreased by longer exposure of the plants to FR light.Dry matter partitioning to different plant organs were not substantially affected by the FR light treatments.No significant differences were observed among the three FR light treatments in plant morphology as well as yield and biomass production.We conclude that under intra-canopy lighting,overhead supplemental FR light stimulates tomato growth and production.And supplementary of EOD-FR0.5 is more favorable,as it consumes less electricity but induces similar effects on plant morphology and yield.
Far-red(FR) light regulates phytochrome-mediated morphological and physiological plant responses.This study aims to investigate how greenhouse tomato morphology and production response to different durations of FR light during daytime and at the end of day(EOD).High-wire tomato plants were grown under intra-canopy lighting consisting of red(peak wavelength at 640 nm) and blue(peak wavelength at 450 nm) light-emitting diodes(LEDs) with photosynthetic photon flux density(PPFD) of 144 μmol m–2 s–1 at 10 cm away from the lamps,and combined with overhead supplemental FR light(peak wavelength at 735 nm) with PPFD of 43 μmol m–2 s–1 at 20 cm below the lamps.Plants were exposed to three durations of FR supplemental lighting including: 06:00–18:00(FR12),18:00–19:30(EOD-FR1.5),18:00–18:30(EOD-FR0.5),and control that without supplemental FR light.The results showed that supplemental FR light significantly stimulated stem elongation thereby resulting in longer plants compared with the control.Moreover,FR light altered leaf morphology toward higher leaf length/width ratio and larger leaf area.The altered plant architecture in FR supplemented plants led to a more homogeneous light distribution inside the canopy.Total plant biomass was increased by 9–16% under supplemental FR light in comparison with control,which led to 7–12% increase in ripe fruit yield.Soluble sugar content of the ripe tomato fruit was slightly decreased by longer exposure of the plants to FR light.Dry matter partitioning to different plant organs were not substantially affected by the FR light treatments.No significant differences were observed among the three FR light treatments in plant morphology as well as yield and biomass production.We conclude that under intra-canopy lighting,overhead supplemental FR light stimulates tomato growth and production.And supplementary of EOD-FR0.5 is more favorable,as it consumes less electricity but induces similar effects on plant morphology and yield.
引文
Blom T J,Tsujita M J,Roberts G L.1995.Far-red at end of day and reduced irradiance affect plant height of easter and asiatic hybrid Lilies.Hortscience,30,1009-1012.
Cao K,Yu J,Ye L,Zhao H,Zou Z.2016.Optimal LED far-red light intensity in end-of-day promoting tomato growth and development in greenhouse.Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,32,171-176.(in Chinese)
Casal J J,Sadras V O.1987.Effects of end-of-day red/farred ratio on growth and orientation of sunflower leaves.Botanical Gazette,148,463-467.
Decoteau D R,Kasperbauer M J,Daniels D D,Hunt P G.1988.Plastic mulch color effects on reflected light and tomato plant growth.Scientia Horticulturae,34,169-175.
Demotes-Mainard S,Péron T,Corot A,Bertheloot J,Le Gourrierec J,Pelleschi-Travier S,Crespel L,Morel P,Huché-Thélier L,Boumaza R,Vian A,Guérin V,Leduc N,Sakr S.2016.Plant responses to red and far-red lights,applications in horticulture.Environmental and Experimental Botany,121,4-21.
Fankhauser C,Batschauer A.2016.Shadow on the plant:Astrategy to exit.Cell,164,15-17.
Franklin K A.2008.Shade avoidance.New Phytologist,179,930-944.
Franklin K A,Whitelam G C.2005.Phytochromes and shadeavoidance responses in plants.Annals of Botany,96,169-175.
Gómez C,Mitchell C A.2016.In search of an optimized supplemental lighting spectrum for greenhouse tomato production with intra-canopy lighting.Acta Horticulturae,1134,57-62.
Guo X,Hao X,Khosla S,Kumar K G S,Cao R,Bennett N.2016.Effect of LED inter-lighting combined with overhead HPSlight on fruit yield and quality of year-round sweet pepper in commercial greenhouse.Acta Horticulturae,1134,71-78.
Hogewoning S W,Douwstra P,Trouwborst G,van Ieperen W,Harbinson J.2010.An artificial solar spectrum substantially alters plant development compared with usual climate room irradiance spectra.Journal of Experimental Botany,61,1267-1276.
Hogewoning S W,Trouwborst G,Meinen E,van leperen W.2012.Finding the optimal growth-light spectrum for greenhouse crops.Acta Horticultura,956,357-363.
Islam M A,TarkowskáD,Clarke J L,Blystad D-R,Gislerod HR,Torre S,Olsen J E.2014.Impact of end-of-day red and far-red light on plant morphology and hormone physiology of poinsettia.Scientia Horticulturae,174,77-86.
Kasperbauer M J,Peaslee D E.1973.Morphology and photosynthetic efficiency of tobacco leaves that received end-of-day red and far red light during development.Plant Physiology,52,440-442.
Kumar K G S,Hao X,Khosla S,Guo X,Bennett N.2016.Comparison of HPS lighting and hybrid lighting with top HPSand intra-canopy LED lighting for high-wire mini-cucumber production.Acta Horticulturae,1134,111-118.
Li Q,Kubota C.2009.Effects of supplemental light quality on growth and phytochemicals of baby leaf lettuce.Environmental and Experimental Botany,67,59-64.
Li T.2015.Improving radiation use efficiency in greenhouse production systems.Ph D thesis,Wageningnen University,Wageningen,the Netherlands.
Li T,Heuvelink E,Dueck T A,Janse J,Gort G,Marcelis L F.2014.Enhancement of crop photosynthesis by diffuse light:Quantifying the contributing factors.Annals of Botany,114,145-156.
Pettersen R I,Torre S,Gislerod H R.2010.Effects of intracanopy lighting on photosynthetic characteristics in cucumber.Scientia Horticulturae,125,77-81.
Pierik R,de Wit M.2014.Shade avoidance:Phytochrome signalling and other aboveground neighbour detection cues.Journal of Experimental Botany,65,2815-2824.
de Reffye P,Heuvelink E,Guo Y,Hu B G,Zhang B G.2009.Coupling Process-Based Models and plant architectural models:A key issue for simulating crop production.In:Cao W,White J W,Wang E,eds.,Crop Modeling and Decision Support.Springer,Berlin,Heidelberg.
Ruberti I,Sessa G,Ciolfi A,Possenti M,Carabelli M,Morelli G.2012.Plant adaptation to dynamically changing environment:The shade avoidance response.Biotechnology Advances,30,1047-1058.
Sarlikioti V,de Visser P H,Buck-Sorlin G H,Marcelis L F.2011.How plant architecture affects light absorption and photosynthesis in tomato:Towards an ideotype for plant architecture using a functional-structural plant model.Annals of Botany,108,1065-1073.
Trouwborst G,Oosterkamp J,Hogewoning S W,Harbinson J,van Ieperen W.2010.The responses of light interception,photosynthesis and fruit yield of cucumber to LED-lighting within the canopy.Physiology Plant,138,289-300.
Wang J,Lu W,Tong Y,Yang Q.2016.Leaf morphology,photosynthetic performance,chlorophyll fluorescence,stomatal development of lettuce(Lactuca sativa L.)exposed to different ratios of red light to blue light.Frontiers in Plant Science,7,250.
Wünsche J N,Lakso A N.2000.Apple tree physiologyImplications for orchard and tree management.Compact Fruit Tree,33,82-88.
Yang Z C,Kubota C,Chia P L,Kacira M.2012.Effect of endof-day far-red light from a movable LED fixture on squash rootstock hypocotyl elongation.Scientia Horticulturae,136,81-86.
Yin Y G,Tominaga T,Iijima Y,Aoki K,Shibata D,Ashihara H,Nishimura S,Ezura H,Matsukura C.2010.Metabolic alterations in organic acids and gamma-aminobutyric acid in developing tomato(Solanum lycopersicum L.)fruits.Plant Cell Physiology,51,1300-1314.
Cao K,Yu J,Ye L,Zhao H,Zou Z.2016.Optimal LED far-red light intensity in end-of-day promoting tomato growth and development in greenhouse.Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering,32,171-176.(in Chinese)
Casal J J,Sadras V O.1987.Effects of end-of-day red/farred ratio on growth and orientation of sunflower leaves.Botanical Gazette,148,463-467.
Decoteau D R,Kasperbauer M J,Daniels D D,Hunt P G.1988.Plastic mulch color effects on reflected light and tomato plant growth.Scientia Horticulturae,34,169-175.
Demotes-Mainard S,Péron T,Corot A,Bertheloot J,Le Gourrierec J,Pelleschi-Travier S,Crespel L,Morel P,Huché-Thélier L,Boumaza R,Vian A,Guérin V,Leduc N,Sakr S.2016.Plant responses to red and far-red lights,applications in horticulture.Environmental and Experimental Botany,121,4-21.
Fankhauser C,Batschauer A.2016.Shadow on the plant:Astrategy to exit.Cell,164,15-17.
Franklin K A.2008.Shade avoidance.New Phytologist,179,930-944.
Franklin K A,Whitelam G C.2005.Phytochromes and shadeavoidance responses in plants.Annals of Botany,96,169-175.
Gómez C,Mitchell C A.2016.In search of an optimized supplemental lighting spectrum for greenhouse tomato production with intra-canopy lighting.Acta Horticulturae,1134,57-62.
Guo X,Hao X,Khosla S,Kumar K G S,Cao R,Bennett N.2016.Effect of LED inter-lighting combined with overhead HPSlight on fruit yield and quality of year-round sweet pepper in commercial greenhouse.Acta Horticulturae,1134,71-78.
Hogewoning S W,Douwstra P,Trouwborst G,van Ieperen W,Harbinson J.2010.An artificial solar spectrum substantially alters plant development compared with usual climate room irradiance spectra.Journal of Experimental Botany,61,1267-1276.
Hogewoning S W,Trouwborst G,Meinen E,van leperen W.2012.Finding the optimal growth-light spectrum for greenhouse crops.Acta Horticultura,956,357-363.
Islam M A,TarkowskáD,Clarke J L,Blystad D-R,Gislerod HR,Torre S,Olsen J E.2014.Impact of end-of-day red and far-red light on plant morphology and hormone physiology of poinsettia.Scientia Horticulturae,174,77-86.
Kasperbauer M J,Peaslee D E.1973.Morphology and photosynthetic efficiency of tobacco leaves that received end-of-day red and far red light during development.Plant Physiology,52,440-442.
Kumar K G S,Hao X,Khosla S,Guo X,Bennett N.2016.Comparison of HPS lighting and hybrid lighting with top HPSand intra-canopy LED lighting for high-wire mini-cucumber production.Acta Horticulturae,1134,111-118.
Li Q,Kubota C.2009.Effects of supplemental light quality on growth and phytochemicals of baby leaf lettuce.Environmental and Experimental Botany,67,59-64.
Li T.2015.Improving radiation use efficiency in greenhouse production systems.Ph D thesis,Wageningnen University,Wageningen,the Netherlands.
Li T,Heuvelink E,Dueck T A,Janse J,Gort G,Marcelis L F.2014.Enhancement of crop photosynthesis by diffuse light:Quantifying the contributing factors.Annals of Botany,114,145-156.
Pettersen R I,Torre S,Gislerod H R.2010.Effects of intracanopy lighting on photosynthetic characteristics in cucumber.Scientia Horticulturae,125,77-81.
Pierik R,de Wit M.2014.Shade avoidance:Phytochrome signalling and other aboveground neighbour detection cues.Journal of Experimental Botany,65,2815-2824.
de Reffye P,Heuvelink E,Guo Y,Hu B G,Zhang B G.2009.Coupling Process-Based Models and plant architectural models:A key issue for simulating crop production.In:Cao W,White J W,Wang E,eds.,Crop Modeling and Decision Support.Springer,Berlin,Heidelberg.
Ruberti I,Sessa G,Ciolfi A,Possenti M,Carabelli M,Morelli G.2012.Plant adaptation to dynamically changing environment:The shade avoidance response.Biotechnology Advances,30,1047-1058.
Sarlikioti V,de Visser P H,Buck-Sorlin G H,Marcelis L F.2011.How plant architecture affects light absorption and photosynthesis in tomato:Towards an ideotype for plant architecture using a functional-structural plant model.Annals of Botany,108,1065-1073.
Trouwborst G,Oosterkamp J,Hogewoning S W,Harbinson J,van Ieperen W.2010.The responses of light interception,photosynthesis and fruit yield of cucumber to LED-lighting within the canopy.Physiology Plant,138,289-300.
Wang J,Lu W,Tong Y,Yang Q.2016.Leaf morphology,photosynthetic performance,chlorophyll fluorescence,stomatal development of lettuce(Lactuca sativa L.)exposed to different ratios of red light to blue light.Frontiers in Plant Science,7,250.
Wünsche J N,Lakso A N.2000.Apple tree physiologyImplications for orchard and tree management.Compact Fruit Tree,33,82-88.
Yang Z C,Kubota C,Chia P L,Kacira M.2012.Effect of endof-day far-red light from a movable LED fixture on squash rootstock hypocotyl elongation.Scientia Horticulturae,136,81-86.
Yin Y G,Tominaga T,Iijima Y,Aoki K,Shibata D,Ashihara H,Nishimura S,Ezura H,Matsukura C.2010.Metabolic alterations in organic acids and gamma-aminobutyric acid in developing tomato(Solanum lycopersicum L.)fruits.Plant Cell Physiology,51,1300-1314.