Light is one of the limiting factors for plant growth. To increase the PPF for plant growth, greenhouse growers must supplement solar light with electric-powered light. The most common lighting technology used to increase PPF in the greenhouse is HPS. HPS are well accepted as a result of their relatively high fixture PPF efficiency. For example, single-ended and double-ended magnetic and electronic HPS PPF efficiencies range between 0.93 to 1.85 μmol·J−1 (Nelson and Bugbee, 2013, 2014; Philips-Electronics, 2012). An alternative to HPS is the high-intensity LEDs, which currently have reportedly a PPF efficiency ranging between 0.84 and 2.3 μmol·J−1 (Nelson and Bugbee, 2013, 2014; Philips, 2014) and are projected to have a 20-fold increase on their flux per lamp output over the next decade (Haitz and Tsao, 2011).
In addition to their higher efficiencies, LED fixtures can also be built with a customized spectrum. By using different color diodes, growers have the opportunity to optimize spectra for specific growing purposes. In research using LEDs as the sole source light, plants such as peppers, wheat, lettuce, potato plantlets, Arabidopsis thaliana, soybeans, spinach, and radish grown under red light (600 to 700 nm) supplemented with blue light (400 to 500 nm) had greater growth rate and better plant development than plants grown under red light alone (Brown et al., 1995; Goins et al., 1997; Kim et al., 2005; Massa et al., 2008). Among limited information, recent studies testing LEDs as supplemental lighting have shown that the optimal electrical light spectrum for plant growth is different under sole-source lighting than for supplemental lighting For example, Hernández and Kubota (2014a, 2014b) found that plant responses to red and blue photon flux (PF) ratios of LED supplemental lighting were species-specific and dependent on background solar daily light integral (DLI). They concluded that monochromatic red supplemental lighting was preferred for the production of vegetable transplants because cucumber growth rate decreased with the increased of blue PF under low solar DLI (5.2 ± 1.2 mol·m−2·d−1) (Hernández and Kubota, 2014a).
To advance the use of LEDs as a supplemental lighting technology in greenhouses, they have to be compared with the current HPS technology in terms of plant responses and energy consumption. Limited information is available comparing HPS supplemental lighting with LED supplemental lighting in terms of plant growth and development. Currey and Lopez (2013) showed greater leaf and root dry mass on Petunia cuttings grown under LED supplemental lighting with 70:30 red:blue PF ratios compared with the cuttings grown under HPS supplemental lighting. Bergstrand and Schussler (2013) showed that Chrysanthemum plant biomass production was greater under HPS supplemental lighting than those under supplemental red:blue and white LED supplemental lighting. Limited and conflicting research reports are available comparing energy consumption between LED and HPS supplemental lighting. For example, for fresh head lettuce, Martineau et al. (2012) showed greater lettuce dry mass per electric energy input in plants grown under LED supplemental lighting than those under supplemental HPS lighting and reported a 33.8% greater electricity consumption by the HPS supplemental lighting. In tomato, Gomez et al. (2013) showed no increase in yield under supplemental LED lighting compared with the yield under supplemental HPS lighting, but reported 76% greater electrical consumption by the HPS supplemental lighting treatment compared with the LED supplemental lighting treatment. Pinho et al. (2012) reported that a small-scale experiment of supplemental lighting (1-m2 plant growing area) consumed a 40% greater electricity by the HPS lighting than the LED lighting to achieve the same PPF over the canopy. However, when simulated for a commercial greenhouse with 800 m2, HPS lighting was shown to be 44% energy-saving than LED lighting (Pinho et al., 2012).
Plant growth rate per fixture’s electric power consumption is highly correlated to the fixture’s PPF electrical efficiency (μmol·s−1·W−1 or μmol·J−1). More PPF per watt (W) often translates to greater growth rate per kWh. If a LED fixture produces greater growth rate than a HPS fixture and both have similar PPF efficiency (LED: 0.84 to 2.3 μmol·J−1, HPS: 0.93 to 1.85 μmol·J−1), two explanations are possible: 1) plant growth rate is much more enhanced by spectral optimization under the LEDs; and 2) the experimental design causes a disproportionate amount of supplemental PPF of the HPS fixture to fall outside the growing area as a result of a higher fixture density and consequently higher energy consumption than supplemental LED fixtures. In the latter case, interpretation of energy consumption should be carefully done because it presents misleading information and is biased toward LEDs.
To our knowledge, no literature is available on the comparison of HPS to LED supplemental lighting for the production of greenhouse vegetable transplants. The objective of this study is to compare supplemental LED lighting with supplemental HPS lighting in terms of plant growth and development as well as the energy consumption of the fixtures. We have selected greenhouse cucumber transplants as the model crop because cucumber is the second most produced vegetable in hydroponic greenhouses in the United States (Nanfelt, 2011). In addition, cucumber is known to be sensitive to PPF and light quality variations (Hernández and Kubota, 2014a, 2014b; Trouwborst et al., 2010a). Furthermore, cucumber transplants are commonly grown under HPS supplemental lighting in North America during the fall and winter months when solar DLI is the limiting factor for production.
Aldrich, R.A. & Bartock, J.W. 1994 Greenhouse engineering, NRAES-Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY
Bergstrand, K.J. & Schussler, H.K. 2013 Growth, development and photosynthesis of some horticultural plants as affected by different supplementary lighting technologies European Journal of Horticultural Science 78 119 125
Blom, T.J., Tsujita, M.J. & Robert, G.L. 1995 Far-red at end of day and reduced irradiance affect plant height of Easter and Asiatic hybrid lilies HortScience 30 1009 1012
Brown, C.S., Schuerger, A.C. & Sager, J.C. 1995 Growth and photomorphogenesis of pepper plants under red light-emitting diodes with supplemental blue or far-red lighting J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 120 808 813
Chia, P.L. & Kubota, C. 2010 End-of-day far-red light quality and dose requirements for tomato rootstock hypocotyl elongation HortScience 45 1501 1506
Currey, C.J. & Lopez, R.G. 2013 Cuttings of impatiens, pelargonium, and petunia propagated under light-emitting diodes and high-pressure sodium lamps have comparable growth, morphology, gas exchange, and post-transplant performance HortScience 48 428 434
Decoteau, D.R., Kasperbauer, M.J., Daniels, D.D. & Hunt, P.G. 1988 Plastic mulch color effects on reflected light and tomato growth. Sci. Hort. 34:169–175
Dueck, T.A., Janse, J., Eveleens, B.A., Kempkes, F.L.K. & Marcelis, L.F.M. 2012 Growth of Tomatoes under hybrid LED and HPS lighting. International Symposium on Advanced Technologies and Management Towards Sustainable Greenhouse Ecosystems: Greensys 2011, 952. p. 335–342
Goins, G.D., Yorio, N.C., Sanwo, M.M. & Brown, C.S. 1997 Photomorphogenesis, photosynthesis, and seed yield of wheat plants grown under red light-emitting diodes (LEDs) with and without supplemental blue light J. Expt. Bot. 48 1407 1413
Gomez, C., Morrow, R.C., Bourget, C.M., Massa, G.D. & Mitchell, C.A. 2013 Comparison of intracanopy light-emitting diode towers and overhead high-pressure sodium lamps for supplemental lighting of greenhouse-grown tomatoes HortTechnology 23 93 98
Gray, W.M., Ostin, A., Sandberg, G., Romano, C.P. & Estelle, M. 1998 High temperature promotes auxin-mediated hypocotyl elongation in Arabidopsis Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 7197 7202
Hendriks, L. & Ueber, E. 1995 Alternative methods of regulating the elongation growth of ornamental plants: A current assessment Acta Hort. 378 159 167
Heo, J., Lee, C., Chakrabarty, D. & Paek, K. 2002 Growth responses of marigold and salvia bedding plants as affected by monochromic or mixture radiation provided by a light-emitting diode (LED) Plant Growth Regulat. 38 225 230
Hernández, R. & Kubota, C. 2014a Growth and morphological response of cucumber seedlings to supplemental red and blue photon flux ratios under varied solar daily light integrals Sci. Hort. 173C 92 99
Hernández, R. & Kubota, C. 2014b LEDs supplemental lighting for vegetable transplant production: Spectral evaluation and comparisons with HID technology Acta Hort. 1037 829 835
Hogewoning, S.W., Peter, D., Trouwborst, G., Van Leperen, W. & Harbinson, J. 2010a An artificial solar spectrum substantially alters plant developmenr compared with usual climate room irradiance spectra J. Expt. Bot. 61 1267 1276
Hogewoning, S.W., Trouwborst, G., Maljaars, H., Poorter, H., Van Leperen, W. & Harbinson, J. 2010b Blue light dose-response of leaf photosynthesis, morphology, and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combinations of red and blue light J. Expt. Bot. 61 3107 3117
Islam, M.A., Kuwar, G., Clarke, J.L., Blystad, D.R., Gislerod, H.R., Olsen, J.E. & Torre, S. 2012 Artificial light from light emitting diodes (LEDs) with a high portion of blue light results in shorter poinsettias compared to high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps Sci. Hort. 147 136 143
Jeffrey, S.W. 1980 Responses to light in aquatic plants. In: Pirson, A. and M.H. Zimmermann (eds.). Encyclopedia of planta physiology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany
Jeffrey, S.W. & Vesk, M. 1981 Blue-green light effects in marine microalgae: Enhanced thylakoid and chlorophyll synthesis, p. 435–442. In: Akoyunoglou, G. (ed.). Photosynthesis VI—Photosynthesis and productivity. Balaban, Philadelphia, PA
Kasperbauer, M.J. & Peaslee, D.E. 1973 Morphology and photosynthestic efficiency of tabacco leaves that received end-of-day red or far red light during development Plant Physiol 52 440 442
Kim, H.-H., Wheeler, R.M., Sager, J.C., Yorio, N.C. & Goins, G.D. 2005 Light-emiting diodes as an illumination source for plants: A review of research at Kennedy Space Center Habitation (Elmsford) 10 71 78
Lieth, J.H. & Pasian, C.C. 1990 A model for net photosynthesis of rose leaves as a function of photosynthetically active radiation, leaf temperature, and leaf age J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 115 486 491
Lokke, S. & Christensen, P. 2008 The introduction of the precautionary principle in Danish environment policy: The case of plant growth retardants J. Agr. Environ. Ethics 21 229 247
Martineau, V., Lefsrud, M., Naznin, M.T. & Kopsell, D.A. 2012 Comparison of light-emitting diode and high-pressure sodium light treatments for hydroponics growth of Boston lettuce HortScience 47 477 482
Nanfelt, M. 2011 Hydroponic crop farming. IBIS World Industry Report OD4012
Nelson, J. & Bugbee, B. 2013 Supplemental greenhouse lighting: Return on investment for LED and HPS fixtures. Utah State University. 10 Jan. 2014. <http://cpl.usu.edu/htm/research/by=category/category=871/start=21>
Nelson, J.A. & Bugbee, B. 2014 Economic analysis of greenhouse lighting: Light emitting diodes vs high intensity discharge fixtures PLoS ONE 9 e99010
Oh-Hama, T. & Hase, E. 1981 Role of light in 5-aminolevulinic acid formation in wild strain and mutant C-2A cells of Scenedesmus obliquus Plant Cell Physiol. 22 747 758
Philips 2014 The new fast-track to growth: Philips GreenPower LED toplighting. (ed.). N.V. Philips, The Netherlands.
Philips-Electronics 2012 Profitable growth Master GreenPower Plus 66 W EL & 1000 W EL. ELECTRONICS, K. P. (ed.). N.V. Philips, The Netherlands.
Pinho, P., Hytonen, T., Rantanen, M. & Elomaa, P. 2012 Dynamic control of supplemental lighting intensity in a greenhouse environment Lighting Res. Tech. 0 1 10
Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü., Poorter, L., Wright, I.J. & Villar, R. 2009 Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): A meta-analysis New Phytol. 182 565 588
Poorter, H., Niinemets, Ü., Walter, A., Fiorani, F. & Schurr, U. 2010 A method to construct dose–response curves for a wide range of environmental factors and plant traits by means of a meta-analysis of phenotypic data J. Expt. Bot. 61 2043 2055
Runkle, E.S. & Heins, R.D. 2001 Specific functions of red, far red, and blue light in flowering and stem extension of long-day plants J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 126 275 282
Sager, J.C., Smith, W.O., Edwards, J.L. & Cyr, K.L. 1988 Photosynthetic efficiency and phytochrome photoequilibria determination using spectral data Trans. ASAE 31 1882 1889
Savvides, A., Fanourakis, D. & Van Ieperen, W. 2012 Co-ordination of hydraulic and stomatal conductances across light qualities in cucumber leaves J. Expt. Bot. 63 1135 1143
Smith, H. 1982 Light quality, photoperception and plant strategy. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33:481–518.
Spaargaren, I.J.J. 2001 Supplemental lighting for greenhouse crops. Hortilux Schreder, Moster, The Netherlands
Trouwborst, G., Oosterkamp, J., Hogewoning, S.W., Harbinson, J. & Van Ieperen, W. 2010a The responses of light interception, photosynthesis and fruit yield of cucumber to LED-lighting within the canopy Physiol. Plant. 138 289 300
Trouwborst, G., Oosterkamp, J., Hogewoning, S.W., Harbinson, J. & Van Leperen, W. 2010b The responses of light interception, photosynthesis and fruit yield of cucumber to LED-lighting within the canopy Physiol. Plant. 138 289 300
Vesk, M. & Jeffrey, S.W. 1977 Effect of blue–green light on photosynthetic pigments and chloroplast structure in unicellular marine algae form six classes J. Phycol. 13 280 288