4.1 Article

Light-emitting diode spectra modify nutritional status, physiological response, and secondary metabolites in Ficus hirta and Alpinia oxyphylla

出版社

UNIV AGR SCI & VETERINARY MED CLUJ-NAPOCA
DOI: 10.15835/nbha49212314

关键词

chlorophyll; flavonoid; light-emitting diode; medicinal plants; saponin; non-structural carbohydrate

资金

  1. Science and Technology Projects of Guizhou Province [[2018] 1045, [2017] 5788, [2018] 5781]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41861017, 31771695]
  3. Construction Program of Biology First-class Discipline in Guizhou [GNYL [2017] 009]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Program for ecology research group) [0901-110109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that Ficus hirta and Alpinia oxyphylla seedlings responded differently to different lighting spectra. F. hirta was negatively impacted by blue light, while A. oxyphylla thrived under red light conditions for the production of flavonoids and saponins.
Lighting spectrum is one of the key factors that determine biomass production and secondary-metabolism accumulation in medicinal plants under artificial cultivation conditions. Ficus hirta and Alpinia oxyphylla seedlings were cultured with blue (10% red, 10% green, 70% blue), green (20% red, 10% green, 30% blue), and red-enriched (30% red, 10% green, 20% blue) lights in a wide bandwidth of 400-700 nm. F. hirta seedlings had lower diameter, fine root length, leaf area, biomass, shoot nutrient (N) and phosphorus concentrations in the blue-light spectrum compared to the red-and green-light spectra. In contrast, A. oxyphylla seedlings showed significantly higher concentrations of foliar flavonoids and saponins in red-light spectrum with rare responses in N, chlorophyll, soluble sugars, and starch concentrations. F. hirta is easily and negatively impacted by blue-light spectrum but A. oxyphylla is suitably used to produce flavonoid and saponins in red-light spectrum across a wide bandwidth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据