Low light often limits photosynthesis and growth and reduces plant quality and is the main limiting factor for the production of horticultural crops, such as vegetables and ornamental bedding plants, during the winter in temperate climates (Gaudreau and Chartbonneau, 1994; Lopez and Runkle, 2008; Nelson, 2012). Daily light integral [DLI (total PPF integrated over 24-h)] in greenhouses in the northern latitudes of the United States can be as low as 2.5–10 mol·m−2·d−1 from November to February (Korczynski et al., 2002). Supplemental lighting is often needed to produce high-quality crops in controlled-environment agriculture but can substantially increase production costs. For example, van Iersel and Gianino (2017) estimated that the cost of supplemental lighting provided by high-pressure sodium lamps can account for about 30% of the farm gate value for vegetable greenhouses. The high cost of supplemental lighting in controlled environments necessitates the need for more efficient use of supplemental light.
Supplemental light use efficiency can be improved by implementing energy-efficient lights, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (Nelson and Bugbee, 2014). In addition to the efficiency of the lights, the overall efficiency at which the electrical energy is converted into plant biomass depends on how efficiently plants use light for photosynthesis. Not all the light absorbed by plants is used in the photochemical reactions of photosynthesis. Some of the absorbed light is dissipated as heat and a small fraction is re-emitted as chlorophyll fluorescence (Maxwell and Johnson, 2000). The quantum yield of photosystem II, the efficiency with which photosystem II (PSII) uses absorbed photons for electron transport, or the moles of electrons transported per mole of photons (typically expressed as a unitless fraction) can be easily measured using chlorophyll fluorescence (Genty et al., 1989; Maxwell and Johnson, 2000). In addition, chlorophyll fluorescence can be used to estimate the ETR, which is often closely correlated with photosynthetic rate (Beer et al., 1998; Flexas et al., 1999), and the degree of heat dissipation under various light conditions. As light intensity increases, plants use the absorbed light less efficiently for photosynthesis, while more of that absorbed light energy is dissipated as heat or through chlorophyll fluorescence (Baker, 2008; Demmig-Adams et al., 1996; van Iersel et al., 2016b). As a result, supplemental light provided at high intensities or in addition to a high ambient light intensity is expected to be used relatively inefficiently for photosynthesis (van Iersel and Gianino, 2017) and presumably growth. Clearly, it is not beneficial to provide supplemental light when plants cannot use that light efficiently for photosynthesis.
Genetic adaptation of plants to their light environment occurs over generations and at the population level and has resulted in photosynthetic differences among species. High-light-adapted species generally have greater photosynthetic capacity; i.e., a higher maximum photosynthetic rate and a higher light-saturation point than shade-adapted species (Björkman, 1981). By contrast, shade-adapted species tend to reach maximum photosynthetic capacity at much lower light intensity and are more likely to incur damage to the photosynthetic reaction centers under high light [photoinhibition (Demmig-Adams and Adams, 1992)]. Although the photosynthetic responses to PPF have been reported for many species, this information has seldom been used to examine how the supplemental light use efficiency changes with changing PPF and how supplemental lighting can be optimized for different species. van Iersel and Gianino (2017) reported that plants with different photosynthetic capacities responded differently to supplemental light. They simulated the responses of net photosynthesis (An) of two species to supplemental light provided at different ambient PPF and found that the high-light-adapted species Campanula portenschlagiana (with greater photosynthetic capacity) showed pronounced increases in An when supplemental light was provided at a relatively high ambient PPF of 250 μmol·m−2·s−1, whereas little increase in An was observed in the low-light-adapted plant Heuchera americana when supplemental light was provided at the same ambient PPF (van Iersel and Gianino, 2017).
In addition to adaptation, short-term acclimation to light, typically taking place within minutes to weeks (within the life cycle of a plant), can also induce phenotypic modifications that alter plants’ photosynthetic light use efficiency (Anderson et al., 1995; Björkman, 1981; Valladares and Niinemets, 2008). Such modifications include changes in leaf anatomical structures (Evans and Poorter, 2001; McMillen and McClendon, 1983), chlorophyll content and chlorophyll a/b ratio (Givnish, 1988; Niinemets, 2010), changes in electron transport capacity per unit chlorophyll (Anderson and Osmond, 1987), rubisco content and activity (Björkman, 1981; Seemann, 1989), xanthophyll cycle pigment pool size (involved in heat dissipation of the absorbed light) (Demmig-Adams and Adams, 1992; Logan et al., 1998), and maximum photosynthetic capacity (Oguchi et al., 2005). The importance of acclimation to different light levels for the efficiency with which plants use supplemental light for photochemistry has not been studied.
Currently, supplemental lighting in greenhouses is typically controlled by a timer or based on ambient light levels. The ability of a crop to efficiently use the supplemental light for photosynthesis is seldom considered when developing supplemental lighting strategies. Few studies have investigated the feasibility of optimizing supplemental lighting in controlled environments based on plant physiological responses to light (van Iersel et al., 2016a, 2016b) and there is a need for information on how supplemental lighting can be optimized for crops adapted and/or acclimated to different light environments. Chlorophyll fluorescence measurements are especially well-suited for this purpose because they can be used to determine how efficiently plants use the provided light in a real-time, noninvasive manner. Therefore, our objectives were the following: 1) to determine the photochemical responses of different species to a wide range of light intensities; 2) to quantify how light acclimation affects crops’ photochemistry; and 3) to examine how supplemental light use efficiency changes with changing ambient light levels, and how supplemental light can be optimized for crops adapted and/or acclimated to different light environments.
AdamsW.W.IIIDemmig-AdamsB.1992Operation of the xanthophyll cycle in higher plants in response to diurnal changes in incident sunlightPlanta186390398
AndersonJ.M.ChowW.S.ParkY.1995The grand design of photosynthesis: Acclimation of the photosynthetic apparatus to environmental cuesPhotosynth. Res.46129139
AndersonJ.M.OsmondC.B.1987Shade - sun responses: Compromises between acclimation and photoinhibition p. 1–36. In: D.J. Kyle C.B. Osmond and C.J. Arntzen (eds.). Photoinhibition. Elsevier Science Amsterdam The Netherlands
AroE.McCafferyS.AndersonJ.M.1993Photoinhibition and D1 protein degradation in peas acclimated to different growth irradiancesPlant Physiol.103835843
BakerN.R.HarbinsonJ.KramerD.M.2007Determining the limitations and regulation of photosynthetic energy transduction in leavesPlant Cell Environ.3011071125
BeerS.VilenkinB.WeilA.VesteM.SuselL.EshelA.1998Measuring photosynthetic rates in seagrasses by pulse amplitude modulated (PAM) fluorometryMar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.174293300
BjörkmanO.1981Responses to different quantum flux densities p. 57–107. In: O.L. Lange P.S. Nobel C.B. Osmond and H. Ziegler (eds.). Physiological plant ecology I. Encyclopedia of plant physiology Vol. 12A. Springer-Verlag Berlin Germany
BjörkmanO.DemmigB.1987Photon yield of O2 evolution and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77k among vascular plants of diverse originsPlanta170489504
BlankenshipR.E.2014Molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis. 2nd ed. Wiley Oxford UK
ChowW.S.QianL.GoodchildD.J.AndersonJ.M.1988Photosynthetic acclimation of Alocasia macrorrhiza (L.) G. Don to growth irradiance: Structure, function and composition of chloroplastsAustral. J. Plant Physiol.15107122
Demmig-AdamsB.AdamsW.W.III2006Photoprotection in an ecological context: The remarkable complexity of thermal energy dissipationNew Phytol.1721121
Demmig-AdamsB.AdamsW.W.IIIBarkerD.H.LoganB.A.BowlingD.R.VerhoevenA.S.1996Using chlorophyll fluorescence to assess the fraction of absorbed light allocated to thermal dissipation of excess excitationPhysiol. Plant.98253264
Demmig-AdamsB.CohuC.M.MullerO.AdamsW.W.III2012Modulation of photosynthetic energy conversion in nature: From seconds to seasonsPhotosynth. Res.1137588
EvansJ.R.PoorterH.2001Photosynthetic acclimation of plants to growth irradiance: The relative importance of specific leaf area and nitrogen partitioning in maximizing carbon gainPlant Cell Environ.24755767
FlexasJ.EscalonaJ.M.MedranoH.1999Water stress induces different levels of photosynthesis and electron transport rate regulation in grapevinesPlant Cell Environ.223948
GaudreauL.ChartbonneauJ.1994Photoperiod and photosynthetic photon flux influence growth and quality of greenhouse-grown lettuceHortScience2912851289
GentyB.BriantaisJ.BakerN.R.1989The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescenceBiochim. Biophys. Acta9908792
KorczynskiP.C.LoganJ.FaustJ.E.2002Mapping monthly distribution of daily light integrals across the contiguous United StatesHortTechnology121216
LoganB.A.Demmig-AdamsB.AdamsW.W.IIIGraceS.C.1998Antioxidants and xanthophyll cycle-dependent energy dissipation in Cucurbita pepo L. and Vinca major L. acclimated to four growth PPFDs in the fieldJ. Expt. Bot.4918691879
LopezR.G.RunkleE.2008Photosynthetic daily light integral during propagation influences rooting and growth of cuttings and subsequent development of new guinea impatiens and petuniaHortScience4320522059
MatosF.S.WolfgrammR.GonçalvesF.V.CavatteP.C.VentrellaM.C.DaMattaF.M.2009Phenotypic plasticity in response to light in the coffee treeEnviron. Expt. Bot.67421427
McMillenG.G.McClendonJ.H.1983Dependence of photosynthetic rates on leaf density thickness in deciduous woody plants grown in sun and shadePlant Physiol.72674678
MurchieE.H.HortonP.1997Acclimation of photosynthesis to irradiance and spectral quality in British plant species: Chlorophyll content, photosynthetic capacity and habitat preferencePlant Cell Environ.20438448
NelsonP.V.2012Greenhouse operation and management. 7th ed. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River NJ
NelsonJ.A.BugbeeB.2014Economic analysis of greenhouse lighting: Light emitting diodes vs. high intensity discharge fixturesPLoS One96e99010
NemaliK.S.van IerselM.W.2004Acclimation of wax begonia to light intensity: Changes in photosynthesis, respiration, and chlorophyll concentrationJ. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.129745751
NiinemetsÜ.2010A review of light interception in plant stands from leaf to canopy in different plant functional types and in species with varying shade toleranceEcol. Res.25693714
OguchiR.HikosakaK.HiroseT.2005Leaf anatomy as a constraint for photosynthetic acclimation: Differential responses in leaf anatomy to increasing growth irradiance among three deciduous treesPlant Cell Environ.28916927
SeemannJ.R.1989Light adaptation/acclimation of photosynthesis and the regulation of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase activity in sun and shade plantsPlant Physiol.91379386
van IerselM.W.GianinoD.2017An adaptive control approach for LED lights can reduce the energy costs of supplemental lighting in greenhousesHortScience527277
van IerselM.W.MattosE.WeaverG.FerrareziR.S.MartinM.T.HaidekkerM.2016aUsing chlorophyll fluorescence to control lighting in controlled environment agricultureActa Hort.1134427433
van IerselM.W.WeaverG.MartinM.T.FerrareziR.S.MattosE.HaidekkerM.2016bA chlorophyll fluorescence-based biofeedback system to control photosynthetic lighting in controlled environment agricultureJ. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.141169176
VerhoevenA.S.Demmig-AdamsB.AdamsW.W.III1997Enhanced employment of the xanthophyll cycle and thermal energy dissipation in spinach expose to high light and N stressPlant Physiol.113817824