4.2 Article

Effects of varying light quality from single-peak blue and red light-emitting diodes during nursery period on flowering, photosynthesis, growth, and fruit yield of everbearing strawberry

期刊

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 267-276

出版社

JAPANESE SOC PLANT CELL & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
DOI: 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.16.0216a

关键词

closed system; Fragaria vesca; harvest index; nursery plant; plant factory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the effects of varying light quality on the flowering, photosynthetic rate and fruit yield of everbearing strawberry plants (Fragariaxananassa Duch. 'HS138'), which are long-day plants, to increase the efficiency of fruit production in plant factories. The plants were grown under continuous lighting using three types of blue and red LEDs (blue light peak wavelength: 405, 450, and 470 nm; red light peak wavelength: 630, 660, and 685 nm) during the nursery period. All blue light from the various peak LED types promoted more flowering compared with red light (630 and 660 nm except for 685 nm). The longer wavelength among the red light range positively correlated with earlier flowering, whereas the number of days to anthesis did not significantly differ among blue LED treatment wavelengths, irrespective of peak wavelength. The result of a similar experiment using the perpetual flowering Fragaria vesca accession Hawaii-4 representing a model strawberry species showed almost the same pattern of flowering response to light quality. These results suggest that long-day strawberry plants show similar flowering response to light quality. The photosynthetic rate under red light (660 nm) was higher than that under blue light (450 nm). However, the plants grown under red light showed lower photosynthetic capacity than those grown under blue light. Although the light color used to grow the seedlings showed no difference in the daily fruit production, blue light irradiation during the nursery period hastened harvesting because of the advance in flowering.

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

4.2
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