Low-Intensity Blue Light Supplemented during Photoperiod in Controlled Environment Induces Flowering and Antioxidant Production in Kalanchoe

Light blocking film in a glasshouse impacts Capsicum annuum L. yield differentially across planting season

High energy costs are a barrier to producing high-quality produce at protected cropping facilities. A potential solution to mitigate high energy costs is film technology, which blocks heat-producing radiation; however, the alteration of the light environment by these films may impact crop yield and quality. Previous studies have assessed the impact of ULR 80 [i.e., light-blocking film (LBF)] on crop yield and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR); however, an assessment of the spectral environment over different seasons is important to understand potential crop impacts through different developmental phases. In this study, two varieties (red and orange) of Capsicum annuum were grown across two crop cycles: one cycle with primary crop growth in the autumn (i.e., autumn experiment [AE]) and the other with primary crop growth in the summer (i.e., summer experiment [SE]). LBF reduced PAR (roof level: 26%-30%, plant canopy level: 8%-25%) and net radiation (36%-66%). LBF also reduced total diffuse PAR (AE: 8%, SE: 15%), but the diffuse fraction of PAR increased by 7% and 9% for AE and SE, respectively, potentially resulting in differential light penetration throughout the canopy across treatments. LBF reduced near-infrared radiation (700 nm-2,500 nm), including far-red (700 nm-780 nm) at mid- and lower-canopy levels. LBF significantly altered light quantity and quality, which determined the amount of time that the crop grew under light-limited (<12 mol m-2 d-1) versus sufficient light conditions. In AE, crops were established and grown under light-limited conditions for 57% of the growing season, whereas in SE, crops were established and grown under sufficient light conditions for 66% of the growing season. Overall, LBF significantly reduced the yield in SE for both varieties (red: 29%; orange: 16%), but not in AE. The light changes in different seasons in response to LBF suggest that planting time is crucial for maximizing fruit yield when grown under a film that reduces light quantity. LBF may be unsuitable for year-round production of capsicum, and additional development of LBF is required for the film to be beneficial for saving energy during production and sustaining good crop yields in protected cropping.

The Role of Blue and Red Light in the Orchestration of Secondary Metabolites, Nutrient Transport and Plant Quality

Light is a fundamental environmental parameter for plant growth and development because it provides an energy source for carbon fixation during photosynthesis and regulates many other physiological processes through its signaling. In indoor horticultural cultivation systems, sole-source light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have shown great potential for optimizing growth and producing high-quality products. Light is also a regulator of flowering, acting on phytochromes and inducing or inhibiting photoperiodic plants. Plants respond to light quality through several light receptors that can absorb light at different wavelengths. This review summarizes recent progress in our understanding of the role of blue and red light in the modulation of important plant quality traits, nutrient absorption and assimilation, as well as secondary metabolites, and includes the dynamic signaling networks that are orchestrated by blue and red wavelengths with a focus on transcriptional and metabolic reprogramming, plant productivity, and the nutritional quality of products. Moreover, it highlights future lines of research that should increase our knowledge to develop tailored light recipes to shape the plant characteristics and the nutritional and nutraceutical value of horticultural products.

LED Lighting to Produce High-Quality Ornamental Plants

The flexibility of LED technology, in terms of energy efficiency, robustness, compactness, long lifetime, and low heat emission, as well as its applications as a sole source or supplemental lighting system, offers interesting potential, giving the ornamental industry an edge over traditional production practices. Light is a fundamental environmental factor that provides energy for plants through photosynthesis, but it also acts as a signal and coordinates multifaceted plant-growth and development processes. With manipulations of light quality affecting specific plant traits such as flowering, plant architecture, and pigmentation, the focus has been placed on the ability to precisely manage the light growing environment, proving to be an effective tool to produce tailored plants according to market request. Applying lighting technology grants growers several productive advantages, such as planned production (early flowering, continuous production, and predictable yield), improved plant habitus (rooting and height), regulated leaf and flower color, and overall improved quality attributes of commodities. Potential LED benefits to the floriculture industry are not limited to the aesthetic and economic value of the product obtained; LED technology also represents a solid, sustainable option for reducing agrochemical (plant-growth regulators and pesticides) and energy inputs (power energy).

Blue Light Supplemented at Intervals in Long-Day Conditions Intervenes in Photoperiodic Flowering, Photosynthesis, and Antioxidant Properties in Chrysanthemums

The flowering of chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat.), inhibited by long-day lighting, can be reversed with a short period of low supplemental blue light (S-BL). Both flowering and the reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging processes are primarily driven by sugars created by photosynthetic carbon assimilation. In addition, the antioxidant ability potentially affects flowering in photoperiod- and/or circadian rhythm-dependent manners. This indicates that there is an interactive relationship among blue (B) light, photosynthetic efficiency, sugar accumulation, and antioxidant ability in flowering regulation. Here, 4 h of 30 μmol·m^-2·s^-1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) S-BL was applied at the end of a 13-h long-day period (LD13 + 4B) at different intervals during 60 days of experimental duration. The five experimental groups were named according to the actual number of days of S-BL and their intervals: applied once every day, "60 days-(LD13 + 4B) (100.0%)"; once every other day, "30 days-(LD13 + 4B) (50.0%)"; once every three days, "15 days-(LD13 + 4B) (25.0%)"; once every five days, "10 days-(LD13 + 4B) (16.7%)"; and once every seven days, "7 days-(LD13 + 4B) (11.7%)". Two non-S-BL control groups were also included: 60 10-h short days (60 days-SD10) and 13-h long days (60 days-LD13). At the harvest stage, varying degrees of flowering were observed except in "60 days-LD13" and "7 days-(LD13 + 4B) (11.7%)". The number of flowers increased and the flower buds appeared earlier as the proportion of S-BL days increased in LD13 conditions, although the "60 days-SD10" gave the earliest flowering. The proportion of initial, pivotal, and optimal flowering was 16.7% ("10 days-(LD13 + 4B)"), 50.0% ("30 days-(LD13 + 4B)"), and 100.0% ("60 days-(LD13 + 4B)"), respectively. Meanwhile, a series of physiological parameters such as the production of enzymatic or non-enzymatic antioxidants, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic efficiency, enzyme activities, and carbohydrate accumulation were significantly improved by "30 days-(LD13 + 4B) (50.0%)" as a turning point until the peaks appeared in "60 days-(LD13 + 4B) (100.0%)", as well as the expression of florigenic or anti-florigenic and some antioxidant-synthetic genes. Furthermore, the results of principal component analysis (PCA) indicated that S-BL days positively regulated flowering, photosynthesis, carbohydrate accumulation, and antioxidant production. In aggregate, the pivotal and optimal proportions of S-BL days to reconcile the relationship among flowering, photosynthetic carbon assimilation, and antioxidant ability were 50.0% and 100.0%, respectively. However, there are still significant gaps to be filled in order to determine the specific involvement of blue light and antioxidant abilities in flowering regulation.

The Influence of End-of-Day Blue Light on the Growth, Photosynthetic, and Metabolic Parameters of Lettuce at Different Development Stages

This study evaluates the effect of end-of-day blue (EOD B) light on the physiological response of lettuce (Lactuca sativa, Lobjoits Green Cos) at different phenological development stages. Plants were grown in a controlled environment growth chamber (day/night temperature 21 ± 2 °C; relative air humidity 60 ± 5%) under the light of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) consisting of 5% blue (B; 450 nm), 85% red (R; 660 nm), and 10% green (G; 530 nm) photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) at 200 µmol m^-2 s^-1 for 16 h d^-1 (BRG, control) for 8, 15, and 25 days (BBCH 12, BBCH 14, and BBCH 18, respectively). For the EOD B treatments, lettuce plants were additionally illuminated with 100% of B light at 30 and 60 µmol m^-2 s^-1 PPFD for 4 h d^-1 (B₃₀ and B₆₀, respectively). The results show that EOD B light caused the elevated shoot elongation of lettuce plants regardless of their growth stages. However, leaf width increased only in more developed lettuce plants (BBCH 18). EOD B light negatively affected the development of new leaves and fresh weight, except for seedlings (BBCH 12). Most photosynthetic and spectral leaf indices also decreased when lettuce was treated with EOD B light, especially under the PPFD level of 60 µmol m^-2 s^-1. Moreover, the changes in metabolic parameters such as DPPH free radical activity, free proline content, and H⁺-ATPase activity in lettuce showed a plant response to unfavorable conditions to EOD B light.

Effects of light spectrum on the morphophysiology and gene expression of lateral branching in Pepino (Solanum muricatum)

In the present study, we determined the morphological and physiological indicators of Pepino to elucidate its lateral branching responses to different light qualities using a full-spectrum lamp (F) as the control and eight different light ratios using blue light (B) and red light (R). In addition, correlation analysis revealed that the gene expression patterns correlated with lateral branching under various light treatments. Compared with the F treatment, the R treatment increased the plant height and inhibited the elongation of lateral branches, in contrast with the B treatment. The number of lateral branches did not change significantly under different light quality treatments. Moreover, correlation analysis showed that the ratio of blue light was significantly positively correlated with the length of lateral branches and significantly negatively correlated with plant height, aboveground dry weight, and other indicators. We conducted transcriptome sequencing of the sites of lateral branching at three periods under different light quality treatments. The gene related to photodynamic response, cryptochrome (CRY), was the most highly expressed under B treatment, negatively regulated lateral branch length, and positively correlated with plant height. Branched 1, a lateral branch regulation gene, was upregulated under R treatment and inhibited branching. Overall, the red light facilitated internode elongation, leaf area expansion, plant dry weight increase, and inhibition of lateral branching. Soluble sugar content increased, and the lateral branches elongated under blue light. Different light qualities regulated lateral branching by mediating different pathways involving strigolactones and CRY. Our findings laid a foundation for further clarifying the response mechanism of Pepino seedlings to light and provided a theoretical reference for elucidating the regulation of different light qualities on the lateral branching of Pepino.

The flowering of SDP chrysanthemum in response to intensity of supplemental or night-interruptional blue light is modulated by both photosynthetic carbon assimilation and photoreceptor-mediated regulation

The photoreceptor-mediated photoperiodic sensitivity determines the obligate short-day flowering in chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat.) when the night length is longer than a critical minimum, otherwise, flowering is effectively inhibited. The reversal of this inhibition by subsequent exposure to a short period of supplemental (S) or night-interruptional (NI) blue (B) light (S-B; NI-B) indicates the involvement of B light-received photoreceptors in the flowering response. Flowering is mainly powered by sugars produced through photosynthetic carbon assimilation. Thus, the light intensity can be involved in flowering regulation by affecting photosynthesis. Here, it is elucidated that the intensity of S-B or NI-B in photoperiodic flowering regulation of chrysanthemums by applying 4-h of S-B or NI-B with either 0, 10, 20, 30, or 40 μmol·m^-2·s^-1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) in a 10-h short-day (SD10) [SD10 + 4B or + NI-4B (0, 10, 20, 30, or 40)] or 13-h long-day (LD13) condition [LD13 + 4B or + NI-4B (0, 10, 20, 30, or 40)] provided by 300 ± 5 μmol·m^-2·s^-1 PPFD white (W) LEDs. After 60 days of photoperiodic light treatments other than the LD13 and LD13 + NI-4B (40), flowering with varying degrees was observed, although the SD10 gave the earliest flowering. And the LD13 + 4B (30) produced the greatest number of flowers. The flowering pattern in response to the intensity of S-B or NI-B was consistent as it was gradually promoted from 10 to 30 μmol m^-2 s^-1 PPFD and inhibited by 40B regardless of the photoperiod. In SD conditions, the same intensity of S-B and NI-B did not significantly affect flowering, while differential flowering inhibition was observed with any intensity of NI-B in LDs. Furthermore, the 30 μmol·m^-2·s^-1 PPFD of S-B or NI-B up-regulated the expression of floral meristem identity or florigen genes, as well as the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic efficiency, and carbohydrate accumulation. The 40B also promoted these physiological traits but led to the unbalanced expression of florigen or anti-florigen genes. Overall, the photoperiodic flowering in response to the intensity of S-B or NI-B of the SDP chrysanthemum suggests the co-regulation of photosynthetic carbon assimilation and differential photoreceptor-mediated control.