Performance of Various Salad Crops Grown under Candidate Lighting Technologies NRA98-HEDs-01-067 Gregory D. Goins Dynamac Corporation Mail Code: DYN-3 Kennedy Space Center, Florida, USA 32899
Electric Plant Lighting Systems ELECTIC POWER E=hc/l EDIBLE BIOMASS EMF PPF Conversion Efficiency mol photons/j Delivery & PS Efficiency g /mol photons System Design Power Requirements Thermal Exchange/Removal Mass and Volume Modularity Source Lamp Safety Conversion Efficiency Spectral Quality Spectral Distribution Longevity Crop Quantum Efficiency Spectral Absorption Light Interception Photoperiod Light Pollution
RADISH Why Salad-Type Crops? Low growth habit with defined shape Adaptable to confined controlled environment cultivation Short life cycle allows multiple harvests in defined time periods Simple post-harvest processing Fresh vegetable source with supplemental minerals, vitamins, and fiber SPINACH
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) Small mass and volume Limited thermal radiation projection to plant canopy Plants safely grown in close proximity to arrays Particularly suited for space transit vehicles
Sulfur-Microwave Lamp Good electrical to visible light conversion efficiency High visible light output for remote light pipe applications Uniform broad-spectrum visible light emission Output can be dimmed without significant spectral shift
Past experiments with LED lighting at KSC Wheat grown under Red LEDs alone (no blue light) Net positive CER, dry matter, & grain yield decreased In leaves during vegetative and pre-anthesis stages sucrose levels decreased Decreased SPS & cytosolic Frc 1,6 Bpase activities starch levels elevated Increased ADP-G activity Given supplemental blue light, plants grown under red LEDs similar to those under broad-spectrum sources Arabidopsis grown under Red LEDs alone (no blue light) Abnormal leaf development under red LEDs alone (without supplemental blue light) Red LEDs Red LEDs Promotion of vegetative growth and delayed flowering under red LEDs alone Fewer seed (but viable) produced under red LEDs alone Goins, G.D., N.C. Yorio, M.M. Sanwo, and C.S. Brown. 1997. J. Exp. Bot. 48:1407-1413. Goins et al., 1998. J. Life Support & Biosphere Science 5:143-149. Sanwo M.M., G.D. Goins, N.C. Yorio, and C.S. Brown. 2001. J. Exp. Bot. (In review) White light + blue light - blue light
300 340 380 420 460 500 540 580 620 660 700 740 780 820 860 900 940 980-2 s -1 nm -1 ) 1020 1060 1100 Spectral Photon Flux (µmol m 12 10 Spectral distribution of light (300-1100nm) from lamp sources in salad crop experiments at KSC 8 6 PAR (400-700 nm) 660 HPS 680 670 690 700 725 Narrow-spectrum LED arrays 10 rows red + 5 rows blue Red LEDs: 660, 670, 680, 690, 700, and 725 nm Each integrated with Blue LEDs: 470 nm Broad-spectrum Cool-white Fluorescent (CWF): F15T12 High-Pressure Sodium (HPS): 250-watt lamp Sulfur-Microwave: Solar 1000W lamp 4 2 µwave 470 CWF Wavelength (nm)
Spectral Photon Flux (µmol m -2 s -1 nm -1 ) 12 10 8 6 4 2 Spectral scans (300-1100nm) of light sources Quantum Devices Snap-Lite LEDs QD Label 660 670 680 690 700 725 Actual Peak 664 666 676 688 704 730 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 10 8 6 4 2 Broad-Spectrum "White Light" µwave CWF HPS 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 Wavelength (nm) Spectral distribution of light from various light sources. Spectral scans were taken at the top of the plant canopy with a spectroradiometer. Total PPF was approximately 250 µmol m -2 s -1 for all light sources.
Spectral Characteristics of Lighting Sources Lamp Characteristic µwave CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 (µmol m -2 s -1 ) 300-400 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 400-500 66 54 16 22 22 22 21 23 25 500-600 113 130 129 1 1 1 1 2 2 600-700 72 66 106 227 227 230 228 130 18 700-800 35 7 28 1 3 11 47 188 319 800-900 16 4 100 0 0 0 0 31 0 900-1000 11 2 9 0 0 0 0 13 18 1000-1100 11 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Photon flux (300-1100) 324 272 401 251 253 264 296 378 413 PPF (400-700) 250 250 250 250 250 253 249 154 45 YPF 209 218 229 225 221 212 196 150 82 Blue 66 54 16 22 22 22 21 23 25 R 72 66 106 227 227 230 228 130 18 FR 28 4 15 1 2 7 30 94 160
HPS CWF 690 + 470 nm 700 + 470 nm Spinach at 26 dap under different lamp banks
Experimental Details Lighting treatments located in 3 Conviron PGW-36 chambers 16 (spinach) 18 (lettuce, radish) hour light photoperiod Instantaneous irradiance 250 µmol m -2 s -1 PAR Daily average irradiance 14-16 mol m -2 day -1 Distance lamp bank to root-shoot barrier: 25 cm Plant Trays: 52 cm W x 59 cm L x 10 cm H Root-shoot barrier: 52 cm W x 59 cm L (Growth area: 0.3 m 2 ) Harvest 6 plants at 14, 21, and 28 DAP HPS LEDs
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Spectral Photon Flux (mmol m -2 s -1 nm -1 ) CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800 Broad-Spectrum Wavelength (nm) Light-emitting diodes (nm) C h a r ac te r isti c CW F H PS 6 6 0 6 7 0 6 8 0 6 9 0 3 0 0-4 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0-5 0 0 5 4 1 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 0 0-6 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 9 1 1 1 1 6 0 0-7 0 0 6 6 1 0 6 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 3 0 2 2 8 7 0 0-8 0 0 7 2 8 1 3 1 1 4 7 8 0 0-9 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0-1 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0-1 1 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 Photon flux (300-1100) 2 7 2 4 0 1 2 5 1 2 5 3 2 6 4 2 9 6 PP F (4 00-7 0 0) 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 3 2 4 9 Y PF 2 1 8 2 2 9 2 2 5 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 9 6 B lu e 5 4 1 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 R 6 6 1 0 6 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 3 0 2 2 8 F R 4 1 5 1 2 7 3 0 0.84 0.85 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.76 PSS
DRY MASS YIELD (kg/m 2 ) 0.16 0.14 0.12 b Shoot Root ab a b a LETTUCE a 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 660 680 690 CWF HPS uwave Shoot and root dry mass yield of Waldmann s Green lettuce at 28 DAP. Different letters above bars indicate significant difference based on ANOVA and Tukey's HSD mean procedure test (P<0.05).
LAI m 2 leaf m -2 ground NAR g m -2 d -1 3.5 25 3 i 660 690 q ms i 660 690 S 2.5 u 670 m CWF 20 iq m u 670 m CWF 2 q 680 S HPS u 15 u i q 680 S HPS 1.5 i 10 1 mu q S 0.5 q iu m S 5 i um S q 0 mu q S i 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Days After Planting Days After Planting 12 10 8 6 CGR g m -2 d -1 i 660 u 670 q 680 690 m CWF S HPS i m uq 4 iq S m 2 u 0 im uq S 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Days After Planting 28 30 Leaf area index (LAI), net assimilation rates, and crop growth rates of Waldmann s Green lettuce plants over 28 day crop cycles in the presence of LED, CWF, or HPS lighting (see appendices for curve fit functions). S
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lettuce Head Ground Cover (%) i 660 q 680 690 m CWF j HPS q i i i q j m mq j m j j q j mi q m qj i m i mj q mi q j i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Days After Planting Overhead Digital Photography 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Specific Leaf Area (m 2 kg -1 ) a b bc c a ab HPS CWF 660 670 680 690 Different letters above bars indicate significant difference based on ANOVA and Tukey's HSD mean procedure test (P<0.05)
5 4 3 2 1 0 WUE (g Dry Matter kg -1 Water) a HPS CWF 660 670 680 690 CER (umol m -2 s - 1 ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 b b b ab b a 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 HPS CWF 660 670 680 690 b a b bc Transp (mmol m -2 s - 1 ) HPS CWF 660 670 680 690 Water use efficiency (WUE), transpiration, and carbon exchange rates of 28 dayold Waldmann s Green lettuce plants grown in the presence of LED, CWF, or HPS lighting. Different letters above bars indicate significant difference based on ANOVA and Tukey's HSD mean procedure test (P<0.05) c a b c bc c c
(µmol m -2 s -1 ) Red:Far-Red Ratio PSS Spectral Characteristics Comparison 400 300 200 100 (µmol m -2 s -1 )500 Total photon flux Phytochrome photostationary state 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0 300 250 200 150 100 50 CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 PAR and YPF PAR YPF 0.00 250 200 150 100 50 CWFHPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 Red:Far-Red 0 CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 Lamp 0 CWFHPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 Lamp
Leaf Area/plant (cm 2 ) Shoot diameter/plant (cm) Spinach Leaf Measurements m 2 leaf area kg dm- 1 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 n=12 plants n=12 plants CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 Lamp 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 n=12 plants Jƒ BH F Total leaf area (top) and specific leaf area (bottom) for spinach plants grown under various lighting sources for 28 days. ƒ BJ F H J BF ƒ H 0 14 21 28 DAP Average shoot diameter for spinach plants grown under various lighting sources for 14, 21, or 28 days after planting. Lamp B CWF J HPS H 660 F 670 680 ƒ 690 700 725
Edible fresh biomass/plant (g) (µmol CO 2-2 s -1 ) Spinach edible biomass and net leaf photosynthesis 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 Lamp Edible fresh biomass (leaves + stems) for spinach plants grown 28 days under various lighting sources. 14 n=12 plants n=6 leaves 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CWF HPS 660 670 680 690 700 725 Lamp Net rate of leaf photosynthesis for spinach plants (21 DAP) grown under various lighting sources (error bars indicated standard deviation of the treatment mean).
Summary Successfully implemented 8 separate light treatments Completed spinach growth experiments Given equal PAR (with 660-690 nm red LEDs) biomass yields similar Shoot diameter tends to increase with red LED wavelength, especially beyond 690 nm Many measurements yet to be complete Plant physiological assays Lamp bank electrical power consumption
Supplemental Lighting Strategy for Greenhouse Strawberry Production Joshua S. Gottdenker Graduate Student Gene A. Giacomelli Professor Bioresource Engineering Rutgers University Cook College New Jersey USA
Objectives To test the effects of different Daily Light Integrals (DLIs) To compare the treatment effects: Productivity (grams of fresh fruit / plant) Economically = ($ / plant) Value of Supplemental Light (SL)
Cultural Practices (cont.) Conditioned plug plants are transplanted into the greenhouse. (September 1, 1999)
Incandescent Lamps HPS Lamps Polyethylene Film
moles PAR Measured Daily Light Integral 30 25 20 SLS12 NL 15 10 5 0 September- 99 October- 99 November- 99 December- 99 January- 00
Moles Grams or Number 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Light VS. Fruit Weight 10/29-1/23 SLS12 SLS9 SLS6 NL 16 12 8 4 0 Average DLI Average Fruit Weight Number of Fruit
CO 2 AND MARS GREENHOUSES Raymond M. Wheeler NASA Biomedical Office Kennedy Space Center
CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Why worry about CO 2 for Mars Greenhouses? CO 2 is required for plant photosynthesis CO 2 affects stomatal opening and transpiration CO 2 can affect respiration CO 2 is available from the Martian atmosphere and could serve as a pressurizing gas
CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Plant Responses to CO 2 : Photosynthesis increases with increased CO 2 * light CO 2 + H 2 O CH 2 O + O 2 Transpiration decreases with increased CO 2 * Drops Stomata Close and Water Use Respiration decreases with increased CO 2 * * Typical responses as CO 2 is increased from 0.04 kpa to 0.10 kpa
CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Composition of Mars Atmosphere* Gas Percent ~Pressure ** (%) (kpa) CO 2 95.3 0.67 N 2 2.7 0.019 Ar 1.6 0.011 O 2 0.13 0.0009 CO 0.07 0.0004 H 2 O 0.03 0.0002 *Owen et al. 1977. J. Geophys. Res.28:4635-4639. ** Assuming a total pressure of 0.7 kpa
CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Potatoes
CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Sweetpotatoes
CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses CO 2 Injury to Leaves Radish Soybean
Total DW (g/plant) CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Radish 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CO2 Concentration (ppm)
Total DW (g/plant) CO 2 and Mars Greenhouses Lettuce 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CO2 Concentration (ppm)