| Literature DB >> 32429540 |
Hyeon Woo Jeong1, Hye Ri Lee1, Hyeon Min Kim2, Hye Min Kim3, Hee Sung Hwang4, Seung Jae Hwang1,4,5,6,7.
Abstract
During seedling production, growth control of seedlings is an important problem because the overgrowth of seedlings causes a decrease of seedling quality and has disadvantages after transplanting. In this study, we aim to evaluate the possibility of replacing chemical plant growth regulators using light quality in a closed-type plant production system (CPPS) for cucumber seedling production. We used various light treatments, such as monochromatic or combined red (R) and blue (B), and combined R and B with UV-A or Far-red (Fr) light, to compare with a chemical plant growth regulator conventionally using in nursery farms. The combined R and B treatment decreased stem elongation and increased dry matter and compactness. UV-A treatment increased compactness but did not significantly affect the stem elongation or dry matter. Fr increased stem elongation and stem diameter and decreased compactness and dry matter. In leaf growth, combined R and B treatments and UV-A treatments increased leaf area, specific leaf weight, and SPAD value, and decreased leaf shape index. Fr treatments increased leaf area and leaf shape index and decreased specific leaf weight (SLW) and SPAD values. Cucumber seedlings have many different morphological changes, and R5B5 light quality was more effective in growth control due to higher compactness than chemical plant growth regulators. Also, R5B5 light quality has increased seedling quality, such as dry matter and SLW compared with fluorescent lamps. Thus, the use of light quality is a possible alternative to a chemical plant growth regulator.Entities:
Keywords: Fr light; UV-A; chemical plant growth regulator; compactness; hypocotyl length
Year: 2020 PMID: 32429540 PMCID: PMC7284851 DOI: 10.3390/plants9050639
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
The composition of the nutrient solution used in the experiment.
| Chemical | Concentration (mg·L−1) | Chemical | Concentration (mg·L−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ca(NO3)2·4H2O | 531.00 | Fe-EDTA | 6.29 |
| KNO3 | 656.50 | H3BO3 | 0.16 |
| KH2PO4 | 170.00 | CuSO4·5H2O | 0.02 |
| MgSO4·7H2O | 184.50 | MnSO4·5H2O | 0.22 |
| NH4NO3 | 8.00 | H2MoO4·2H2O | 0.01 |
| K2SO4 | 3.50 | ZnSO4·7H2O | 1.45 |
The light intensity of each wavelength in different light quality combinations.
| Treatment | PPFD (μmol·m−2·s−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 300–399 nm | 400–499 nm | 500–599 nm | 600–699 nm | 700–799 nm | |
| FL | 5.4 | 70.2 | 82.2 | 42.1 | 3.1 |
| R100 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 199.2 | 0.7 |
| B100 | 0.4 | 198.5 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| R5B5 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 0.8 | 98.8 | 0.1 |
| R3B7 | 0.6 | 138.0 | 0.9 | 60.3 | 0.1 |
| R5B5 + UV 0.2 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 0.8 | 98.8 | 0.1 |
| R5B5 + UV 0.4 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 0.8 | 98.8 | 0.1 |
| R5B5 + UV 0.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 0.8 | 98.8 | 0.1 |
| R3B7 + UV 0.2 | 0.6 | 138.0 | 0.9 | 60.3 | 0.1 |
| R3B7 + UV 0.4 | 0.6 | 138.0 | 0.9 | 60.3 | 0.1 |
| R3B7 + UV 0.6 | 0.6 | 138.0 | 0.9 | 60.3 | 0.1 |
| R5B5Fr1 | 0.4 | 69.5 | 0.8 | 64.9 | 66.1 |
| R5B5Fr2 | 0.4 | 84.9 | 0.6 | 82.4 | 41.1 |
| R5B5Fr3 | 0.4 | 82.2 | 0.6 | 83.7 | 27.9 |
| R3B7Fr1 | 0.4 | 105.5 | 0.6 | 46.6 | 47.6 |
| R3B7Fr2 | 0.4 | 120.6 | 0.7 | 52.4 | 26.1 |
| R3B7Fr3 | 0.4 | 124.0 | 0.7 | 49.8 | 24.9 |
Note: PPFD, photosynthetic photon flux density.
Figure 1The spectral distribution of light used in the experiments.
Figure 2“Joeunbaekdadagi” cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) plug seedlings grown under various light qualities at 22 days after treatment.
Figure 3The effects of the light quality on (A) plant height, (B) hypocotyl length, (C) stem diameter, (D) compactness, and (E) dry matter of “Joeunbaekdadagi” cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) plants measured at 22 days after treatment. Vertical bars indicate the mean ± SD. (n = 15). Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences by Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05.
The effects of the light quality on fresh and dry weights of leaf and stem of “Joeunbaekdadagi” cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) measured at 22 days after treatment.
| Treatment | Fresh Weight (g/plant) | Dry Weight (g/plant) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | Stem | Total | Leaf | Stem | Total | |
| FL | 1.44 gh z | 2.49 g | 3.93 f | 0.058 g | 0.109 g | 0.167 j |
| Dini | 1.02 h | 1.45 h | 2.47 g | 0.075 fg | 0.184 f | 0.259 i |
| R | 1.44 gh | 3.37 ef | 4.81 f | 0.052 g | 0.272 e | 0.324 hi |
| B | 3.10 f | 3.22 fg | 6.32 e | 0.121 e | 0.274 e | 0.394 gh |
| R5B5 | 2.20 g | 5.87 a | 8.07 d | 0.109 ef | 0.506 a | 0.616 bcd |
| R3B7 | 2.04 g | 4.30 d | 6.34 e | 0.112 ef | 0.370 d | 0.482 fg |
| R5B5 + UV 0.2 | 2.12 g | 5.28 abc | 7.40 de | 0.099 ef | 0.479 ab | 0.578 cde |
| R5B5 + UV 0.4 | 2.01 g | 5.48 ab | 7.49 de | 0.083 efg | 0.461 abc | 0.545 def |
| R5B5 + UV 0.6 | 1.96 g | 5.05 a-d | 7.01 de | 0.086 efg | 0.426 bcd | 0.513 ef |
| R3B7 + UV 0.2 | 1.99 g | 4.82 bcd | 6.84 de | 0.086 efg | 0.401 bcd | 0.486 efg |
| R3B7 + UV 0.4 | 1.89 g | 5.14 a-d | 7.04 de | 0.081 fg | 0.397 cd | 0.478 fg |
| R3B7 + UV 0.6 | 1.95 g | 4.89 bcd | 6.80 de | 0.084 efg | 0.393 cd | 0.477 fg |
| R5B5Fr1 | 9.91 a | 4.67 bcd | 14.57 a | 0.287 bc | 0.369 d | 0.656 bc |
| R5B5Fr2 | 8.99 b | 4.69 bcd | 13.68 ab | 0.279 cd | 0.367 d | 0.646 bc |
| R5B5Fr3 | 6.67 e | 4.67 bcd | 11.54 c | 0.299 bc | 0.391 cd | 0.691 ab |
| R3B7Fr1 | 8.46 bc | 4.18 de | 12.64 bc | 0.320 ab | 0.342 de | 0.662 bc |
| R3B7Fr2 | 7.47 d | 4.44 cd | 11.91 c | 0.249 d | 0.370 d | 0.619 bcd |
| R3B7Fr3 | 8.06 cd | 4.90 bcd | 12.96 bc | 0.347 a | 0.422 bcd | 0.769 a |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
z Mean separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05. *** Significant at p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 4The effects of the light quality on (A) leaf area, (B) leaf shape index, (C) SLW, and (D) SPAD of “Joeunbaekdadagi” cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) plants measured at 22 days after treatment. Vertical bars indicate the mean ± SD (n = 15). Different letters above the bars indicate significant differences by Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05.