4.7 Article

The Biometric Parameters of Microgreen Crops Grown under Various Light Conditions

期刊

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture12050576

关键词

LEDs; red light; blue light; functional food

类别

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education's program: Regional Initiative Excellence [005/RID/2018/19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By growing 28 microgreens crops under fully controlled conditions in different light sources, it was found that red light significantly increased the fresh and dry weights of more than half of the species, while the light spectrum had a lesser influence on the length of the plants. Nasturtium showed particularly strong growth performance compared to other species.
Microgreens are becoming increasingly popular both as horticultural crops and as vegetables consumed by humans. They are classified as foods of high nutritional value. Twenty-eight microgreens crops were grown in a growth chamber under fully controlled conditions in order to determine how different light treatments affected their growth rate. The plants were grown under three light sources emitting red/blue ratios of about 6.7, 0.6, and 1.6 units (Red light, Blue light, and R + B light, respectively). Apart from that, the spectrum contained 10% yellow and orange light and 10% green light. The fresh weight of the plants ranged from 8 (perilla) to 1052 mg (nasturtium), whereas the length ranged for the same plants from 2.0 to 26.2 cm. The nasturtium was particularly strongly distinguished from the other species by the high values of its biometric parameters. The fresh mass of most of the other microgreens ranged from 20 to 100 mg, whereas their height ranged from 5 to 8 cm. Red light caused a significant increase in the fresh and dry weights of more than half of the species. The light spectrum had a lesser influence on the length of the plants. The research results showed considerable differences in the dynamics of growth of commonly cultivated microgreens.

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

4.7
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