Microgreens are consumed when cotyledons are fully expanded, retaining their typical color, with or without appearance of the first true leaves (Jones-Baumgardt et al., 2019; Kyriacou et al., 2016). Microgreens can be grown in varying scenarios, including outdoor, greenhouse, and indoor environments (Kyriacou et al., 2016). LED lighting has been increasingly used as a sole light source for indoor production of vegetables such as microgreens (Kozai et al., 2015).
Most microgreens are harvested at 7 to 21 d from seeding with a minimum height of ≈5 cm (Kyriacou et al., 2016). Also, commercial microgreen production has been increasingly switching from hand- to machine-harvesting to reduce labor cost. Microgreens with hypocotyls <5 cm are difficult for machine-harvesting, according to the communication with some Canadian growers. It is well known that both red and blue light can mediate stem elongation (Huché-Thélier et al., 2016). Also, monochromatic red and blue LED lights have been successfully used for microgreen cultivation with the advantage of increasing beneficial phytochemicals such as antioxidants (Kopsell and Sams, 2013; Wu et al., 2007). However, limited information is available on the effect of monochromatic red and blue LED lights on stem elongation of microgreens, especially under different photoperiods, because photoperiod can also affect this plant trait (Bergstrand, 2017).
Previous studies indicated that under LED lighting at a photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 100 μmol·m−2·s−1 or 50 μmol·m−2·s−1, monochromatic blue vs. red light promoted elongation growth in all the tested bedding plant species, including petunia, calibrachoa, geranium, and marigold (Kong et al., 2018), and some microgreen species such as arugula, cabbage, and kale (Kong et al., 2019). In these studies, a photoperiod of 24 h was used for lighting treatments. Possibly the blue-light-promoted elongation growth is an artifact specifically from 24-h lighting because it is well known that most plants grow naturally under a periodic light/dark environment. However, similar promotion effects by blue vs. red light have also been achieved under a photoperiod of <24 h (i.e., 12–18 h) in other LED studies on seedlings of eggplant (Hirai et al., 2006), cherry tomato (Kim et al., 2014), cucumber (Hernández and Kubota, 2016), marigold (Heo et al., 2002), and sunflower (Schwend et al., 2015) at a PPFD of ≈100 μmol·m−2·s−1. Thus, under a certain range of light levels (e.g., 100 μmol·m−2·s−1), the promoted stem elongation growth by monochromatic blue light, relative to red light, might be a common phenomenon when photoperiod varied between 12 and 24 h. However, this speculation needs confirmation because the preceding studies were performed with different species under different environments. For indoor production, 16-h lighting daily has become popular (Kozai, 2018). When photoperiod is shortened from 24 h to 16 h, it is unknown whether blue vs. red LED lighting at a PPFD of 100 μmol·m−2·s−1 could also promote elongation growth for some microgreen species.
Shortened photoperiod is known to reduce elongation for some species (Bergstrand, 2017; Schüssler and Bergstrand, 2012). Also, a recent study on petunia indicated that the stem elongation was not promoted by blue vs. red light until the exposure duration increased up to 5 d, and the blue light promotion was proportional to the lighting duration time (Fukuda et al., 2016). It is possible that shortening photoperiod within a certain range may reduce, rather than eliminate, promotion effects of blue vs. red light on plant elongation at least in some species. However, in that study, the petunia plants developed expanded true leaves, so both photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis were involved in blue vs. red light effects on plant elongation under different lighting duration. For microgreens without appearance of true leaves, photomorphogenesis is the main contributor to plant elongation. Therefore, it needs confirmation in the microgreens that shortened photoperiod from 24 h to 16 h can reduce blue light promotion effect on elongation to some degree.
Arugula, cabbage, kale, and mustard are popular species used for microgreen production. In a previous study on these microgreens with unfolded true leaves under 24-h lighting, different species varied in their elongation-promotion response to blue vs. red light at a PPFD of 100 μmol·m−2·s−1, showing a lower sensitivity in mustard than other species (Kong et al., 2019). However, it needs confirmation that microgreens without appearance of true leaves (i.e., from seeding to cotyledon unfolding) also differ in the blue light response among species. In addition to promoted elongation, some other typical shade-avoidance responses such as reduced side branch number and cotyledon size and increased biomass allocation to main stem also occurred under blue vs. red light, which varied with different species (Kong et al., 2018, 2019). It was concluded that blue-light-promoted elongation is a shade-avoidance response with varying sensitivity among species (Kong et al., 2018, 2019). Unfortunately, the conclusion was drawn from the studies on some bedding plants and microgreens under 24-h lighting, although the shade-avoidance responses to blue light have been also reported for Arabidopsis under a photoperiod of <24 h (de Wit et al., 2016; Keller et al., 2011; Pedmale et al., 2016). For microgreens, it is still unclear whether the species difference in blue light’s effect on elongation as a shade-avoidance response could also be found under noncontinuous (e.g., 16-h) lighting.
On the basis of the preceding information, the following three hypotheses were proposed for arugula, cabbage, kale, and mustard seedling growth from seeding to cotyledon unfolding. Under LED lighting at a PPFD of 100 μmol·m−2·s−1 with a photoperiod of 24 h or 16 h, 1) shortened photoperiod (16 h) cannot eliminate the blue light promotion effect on plant elongation relative to red light, 2) the elongation promoted by blue light is greater under 24-h than 16-h lighting at least for some species, and 3) species differ in elongation response to blue light and the interspecies difference is unaffected by photoperiod. The objective of this study was to explore the mode of blue light action on plant elongation in four microgreen species by testing the foregoing hypotheses.
BergstrandK.-J.I.2017Methods for growth regulation of greenhouse produced ornamental pot-and bedding plants—a current reviewFolia Hort.296374
BlackM.ShuttleworthJ.E.1974The role of the cotyledons in the photocontrol of hypocotyl extension in Cucumis sativus LPlanta1175766
de WitM.KeuskampD.H.BongersF.J.HornitschekP.GommersC.M.M.ReinenE.Martinez-CeronC.FankhauserC.PierikR.2016Integration of phytochrome and cryptochrome signals determines plant growth during competition for lightCurr. Biol.2633203326
FanX.ZangJ.XuZ.GuoS.JiaoX.LiuX.GaoY.2013Effects of different light quality on growth, chlorophyll concentration and chlorophyll biosynthesis precursors of non-heading chinese cabbage (Brassica campestris L.)Acta Physiol. Plant.3527212726
FukudaN.AjimaC.YukawaT.OlsenJ.E.2016Antagonistic action of blue and red light on shoot elongation in petunia depends on gibberellin, but the effects on flowering are not generally linked to gibberellinEnviron. Exp. Bot.121102111
GommersC.M.M.VisserE.J.W.St OngeK.R.VoesenekL.A.C.J.PierikR.2013Shade tolerance: When growing tall is not an optionTrends Plant Sci.186571
HeoJ.LeeC.ChakrabartyD.PaekK.2002Growth responses of marigold and salvia bedding plants as affected by monochromic or mixture radiation provided by a light-emitting diode (LED)Plant Growth Regulat.38225230
HernándezR.KubotaC.2016Physiological responses of cucumber seedlings under different blue and red photon flux ratios using LEDsEnviron. Exp. Bot.1216674
HiraiT.AmakiW.WatanabeH.2006Action of blue or red monochromatic light on stem internodal growth depends on plant speciesActa Hort.711345350
Huché-ThélierL.CrespelL.Le GourrierecJ.MorelP.SakrS.LeducN.2016Light signaling and plant responses to blue and UV radiations—perspectives for applications in horticultureEnviron. Exp. Bot.1212238
Jones-BaumgardtC.LlewellynD.YingQ.ZhengY.2019Intensity of sole-source light-emitting diodes affects growth, yield and quality of Brassicaceae microgreensHortScience5411681174
KellerM.M.JaillaisY.PedmaleU.V.MorenoJ.E.ChoryJ.BallareC.L.2011Cryptochrome 1 and phytochrome B control shade-avoidance responses in Arabidopsis via partially independent hormonal cascadesPlant J.67195207
KimE.Y.ParkS.A.ParkB.J.LeeY.OhM.M.2014Growth and antioxidant phenolic compounds in cherry tomato seedlings grown under monochromatic light-emitting diodesHort. Environ. Biotechnol.55506513
KimJ.SongK.ParkE.KimK.BaeG.ChoiG.2016Epidermal phytochrome B inhibits hypocotyl negative gravitropism non-cell autonomouslyPlant Cell2827702785
KongY.SchiestelK.ZhengY.2019Pure blue light effects on growth and morphology are slightly changed by adding low-level UVA or far-red light: A comparison with red light in four microgreen speciesEnviron. Exp. Bot.1575868
KongY.StasiakM.DixonM.A.ZhengY.2018Blue light associated with low phytochrome activity can promote elongation growth as shade-avoidance response: A comparison with red light in four bedding plant speciesEnviron. Exp. Bot.155345359
KongY.ZhengY.2019Variation of phenotypic responses to lighting using combination of red and blue light-emitting diodes versus darkness in seedlings of 18 vegetable genotypesCan. J. Plant Sci.99159172
KopsellD.A.SamsC.E.2013Increases in shoot tissue pigments, glucosinolates, and mineral elements in sprouting broccoli after exposure to short-duration blue light from light emitting diodesJ. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.1383137
KozaiT.2018Smart plant factory: The next generation indoor vertical farms. Springer Singapore
KozaiT.NiuG.TakagakiM.2015Plant Factory: An Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production. Academic Press Amsterdam
KyriacouM.C.RouphaelY.Di GioiaF.KyratzisA.SerioF.RennaM.De PascaleS.SantamariaP.2016Micro-scale vegetable production and the rise of microgreensTrends Food Sci. Technol.57103115
LiH.TangC.XuZ.LiuX.HanX.2012Effects of different light sources on the growth of non-heading chinese cabbage (Brassica campestris L.)J. Agr. Sci.4262273
MizunoT.AmakiW.WatanabeH.2011Effects of monochromatic light irradiation by LED on the growth and anthocyanin contents in leaves of cabbage seedlingsActa Hort.907179184
PedmaleU.V.HuangS.C.ZanderM.ColeB.J.HetzelJ.LjungK.ReisP.A.B.SrideviP.NitoK.NeryJ.R.2016Cryptochromes interact directly with PIFs to control plant growth in limiting blue lightCell164233245
SagerJ.C.SmithW.O.EdwardsJ.L.CyrK.L.1988Photosynthetic efficiency and phytochrome photoequilibria determination using spectral dataTrans. ASAE3118821889
SchüsslerH.K.BergstrandK.J.2012Control of the shoot elongation in bedding plants using extreme short day treatmentsActa Hort.956409415
WarringtonI.J.NortonR.A.1991An evaluation of plant growth and development under various daily quantum integralsJ. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.116544551
WuM.HouC.JiangC.WangY.WangC.ChenH.ChangH.2007A novel approach of LED light radiation improves the antioxidant activity of pea seedlingsFood Chem.10117531758