Leaf Morphology, Photosynthetic Performance, Chlorophyll Fluorescence, Stomatal Development of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Exposed to Different Ratios of Red Light to Blue Light

Wang, Jun; Lu, Wei; Tong, Yuxin; Yang, Qichang

doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00250

Cited by 260 publications

(324 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(84 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

273

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Stomatal aperture is also larger under B LEDs than R and W LEDs [19,71]. In general, elongation of the guard cell is subject to widening of the stomatal opening [72], and loss of water from the guard cell drives stomatal closure [73]. We found that the increase in guard cell length, width, and area in the leaves treated with B LEDs relative to the other LEDs may be associated with stomatal conductance ( Figure 5(A1-A3,b1-b3); Figure S1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Response of Eustoma Leaf Phenotype and Photosynthetic Performance to LED Light Quality

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In a controlled environment, light from light-emitting diodes (LEDs) has been associated with affecting the leaf characteristics of Eustoma. LEDs help plant growth and development, yet little is known about photosynthetic performance and related anatomical features in the early growth stage of Eustoma leaves. In this study, we examined the effects of blue (B), red (R), and white (W) LEDs on the photosynthetic performance of Eustoma leaves, as well as leaf morphology and anatomy including epidermal layer thickness, palisade cells, and stomatal characteristics. Leaves grown under B LEDs were thicker and had a higher chlorophyll content than those grown under the R and W LEDs. Leaves under B LEDs had greater net photosynthetic rates (A), stomatal conductance (g s ), and transpiration rates (E), especially at a higher photon flux density (PPFD), that resulted in a decrease in the intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ), than leaves under the W and R LEDs. B LEDs resulted in greater abaxial epidermal layer thickness and palisade cell length and width than the R and W LED treatments. The palisade cells also developed a more cylindrical shape in response to the B LEDs. B LED leaves also showed greater guard cell length, breadth, and area, and stomatal density, than W or R LEDs, which may contribute to increased A, g s and E at higher PPFDs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Response of Eustoma Leaf Phenotype and Photosynthetic Performance to LED Light Quality

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well known that red light plays important role in shoot elongation and plant anatomy via phytochrome (Schuerger et al, 1997) while blue light is important for Chl biosynthesis (Tripathy and Brown, 1995; Matsuda et al, 2008; Hogewoning et al, 2010; Terfa et al, 2013; Hernández and Kubota, 2016), stomatal development and opening (Hogewoning et al, 2010; Wang et al, 2016). However, very little published information is available on the use of different red- and blue-LEDs combinations to study plants at different growth stages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the study with lettuce grown under mixture of red and blue light or blue light treatments had a higher Chl a / b compared with red light treatment (Wang et al, 2016). Blue light can be absorbed either by Chl or by Car for the formation of “sun-type” chloroplasts (López-Juez and Hughes, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was observed that lettuce and other dicotyledonous plants developed excessive hypocotyl and stem elongation, leaf extension, and reduced chlorophyll (Chl) when grown under red-LED as the sole source of irradiation. The abnormal morphological characteristics were eliminated when red-LED was supplemented with blue light (Bula et al, 1991; Yorio et al, 2001; Nhut et al, 2003; Li et al, 2013; Hernández and Kubota, 2016; Shengxin et al, 2016; Wang et al, 2016). Yield of lettuce, spinach, and radish crops grown under appropriate combination of red and blue light was enhanced compared to red light alone (Yorio et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plant Growth and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Grown Aeroponically under Different Blue- and Red-LEDs

Qin

Chong

et al. 2017

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mesembryanthemum crystallinum is a succulent, facultative crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) plant. Plant growth and photosynthetic characteristics were studied when M. crystallinum plants were grown indoor under light emitting diodes (LED)-lighting with adequate water supply. Plants were cultured aeroponically for a 16-h photoperiod at an equal photosynthetic photon flux density of 350 μmol m-2 s-1 under different red:blue LED ratios: (1) 100:0 (0B); (2) 90:10 (10B); (3) 80:20 (20B); (4) 70:30 (30B); (5) 50:50 (50B); and (6)100:0 (100B). M. crystallinum grown under 10B condition had the highest shoot and root biomass and shoot/root ratio while those grown under 0B condition exhibited the lowest values. Compared to plants grown under 0B condition, all other plants had similar but higher total chlorophyll (Chl) and carotenoids (Car) contents and higher Chl a/b ratios. However, there were no significant differences in Chl/Car ratio among all plants grown under different red- and blue-LEDs. Photosynthetic light use efficiency measured by photochemical quenching, non-photochemical quenching, and electron transport rate, demonstrated that plants grown under high blue-LED utilized more light energy and had more effective heat dissipation mechanism compared to plants grown under 0B or lower blue-LED. Statistically, there were no differences in photosynthetic O2 evolution rate, light-saturated CO2 assimilation rate (Asat), and light-saturated stomatal conductance (gssat) among plants grown under different combined red- and blue-LEDs but they were significantly higher than those of 0B plants. No statistically differences in total reduced nitrogen content were found among all plants. For the total soluble protein, all plants grown under different combined red- and blue-LEDs had similar values but they were significantly higher than that of plants grown under 0B condition. However, plants grown under higher blue-LEDs had significant higher ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco) protein than those plants grown under lower blue-LED. High Asat and gssat but very low CAM acidity of all M. crystallinum plants during light period, imply that this facultative CAM plant performed C3 photosynthesis when supplied with adequate water. Results of this study suggest that compared to red- or blue-LED alone, appropriate combination of red- and blue-LED lighting enhanced plant growth and photosynthetic capacities of M. crystallinum.

show abstract

“…Light quality strongly mediates the operation of the leaf photosynthetic apparatus (Hogewoning et al , Bugbee , Song et al ). Blue (400–500 nm) and red (600–700 nm) light play pivotal roles in determining leaf photosynthesis, as red light has the highest quantum yield (McCree ), and blue light is involved in stomatal opening and leaf photosynthetic functioning (Wang et al , ). Earlier studies reported that plants grown under monochromatic red light suffer a spectral ‘deficiency’ syndrome, which is characterized by abnormal photosynthetic functioning (Trouwborst et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Red/blue light ratio strongly affects steady‐state photosynthesis, but hardly affects photosynthetic induction in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)

Zhang

Kaiser

Zhang

et al. 2018

Physiologia Plantarum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plants are often subjected to rapidly alternating light intensity and quality. While both short‐ and long‐term changes in red and blue light affect leaf photosynthesis, their impact on dynamic photosynthesis is not well documented. It was tested how dynamic and steady‐state photosynthetic traits were affected by red/blue ratios, either during growth or during measurements, in tomato leaves. Four red/blue ratios were used: monochromatic red (R100), monochromatic blue (B100), a red/blue light ratio of 9:1 (R90B10) and a red/blue light ratio of 7:3 (R70B30). R100 grown leaves showed decreased photosynthetic capacity (maximum rates of light‐saturated photosynthesis, carboxylation, electron transport and triose phosphate use), leaf thickness and nitrogen concentrations. Acclimation to various red/blue ratios had limited effects on photosynthetic induction in dark‐adapted leaves. B100‐grown leaves had a approximately 15% larger initial NPQ transient than the other treatments, which may be beneficial for photoprotection under fluctuating light. B100‐grown leaves also showed faster stomatal closure when exposed to low light intensity, which likely resulted from smaller stomata and higher stomatal density. When measured under different red/blue ratios, stomatal opening rate and photosynthetic induction rate were hardly accelerated by increased fractions of blue light in both growth chamber‐grown leaves and greenhouse‐grown leaves. However, steady‐state photosynthesis rate 30 min after photosynthetic induction was strongly reduced in leaves exposed to B100 during the measurement. We conclude that varying red/blue light ratios during growth and measurement strongly affects steady‐state photosynthesis, but has limited effects on photosynthetic induction rate.

show abstract

Leaf Morphology, Photosynthetic Performance, Chlorophyll Fluorescence, Stomatal Development of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Exposed to Different Ratios of Red Light to Blue Light

Cited by 260 publications

References 53 publications

Response of Eustoma Leaf Phenotype and Photosynthetic Performance to LED Light Quality

Response of Eustoma Leaf Phenotype and Photosynthetic Performance to LED Light Quality

Plant Growth and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Grown Aeroponically under Different Blue- and Red-LEDs

Red/blue light ratio strongly affects steady‐state photosynthesis, but hardly affects photosynthetic induction in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About