اثر طیف‌های مختلف نور بر کارایی فتوسنتز گیاه گل سنگ (Hypoestes phyllostachya)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی


1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد گروه علوم باغبانی، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه اردکان

2 گروه علوم باغبانی، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه اردکان، اردکان، ایران


کیفیت نور دریافتی توسط برگ­ها بر فتوسنتز گیاه تاثیر می­گذارد. در پژوهش حاضر اثر طیف­های مختلف نور بر کارایی فتوسنتز گیاه گل سنگ (Hypoestes phyllostachya) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. در این تحقیق با استفاده از آزمون OJIP که از روش­های دقیق محاسبه کارایی فتوسنتز در گیاه می­باشد، اثرات طیف نور بر فتوسنتز تجزیه و تحلیل شد. آزمایش در بهار سال 99 در گلخانه تجاری با شش اتاقک رشد مجهز به نور معمولی گلخانه (شاهد)، 100 درصد نور آبی، 15 درصد نور آبی + 85 درصد نور قرمز، 30 درصد نور آبی + 70 درصد نور قرمز، 15 درصد نور آبی + 65 درصد نور قرمز + 20 درصد نور سفید و 30 درصد نور آبی + 50 درصد نور قرمز + 20 درصد نور سفید، روی دانهال­های چهار برگی گیاه آپارتمانی گل سنگ در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی انجام شد. پس از دو ماه قرارگیری گیاهان در زیر نورهای مختلف با دوره نوری 12 ساعت روشنایی و تاریکی با شدت نوری 250 میکرومول بر مترمربع بر ثانیه، پارامترهای بیوفیزیک فتوسنتزی بررسی شد. بیشترین میزان شاخص حداکثر کارایی کوانتومی فتوسیستم II و حداکثر فلورسانس متغیر نسبی (FM/F0) در تیمارهای نوری 15 درصد نور آبی + 65 درصد نور قرمز + 20 درصد نور سفید+ 70 درصد نور قرمز و 15 درصد نور آبی + 65 درصد نور قرمز + 20 درصد نور سفید حاصل شد. میزان جذب نور به ازای هر مرکز واکنش (ABS/RC) در گیاهان تحت تیمار نوری 30 درصد نور آبی + 50 درصد نور قرمز + 20 درصد نور سفید نور سفید و نیز شاهد بیشتر از سایر تیمارها بود. میزان گرفتن الکترون به ازای هر مرکز واکنش (TR0/RC) و انرژی اتلاف شده به ازای هر مرکز واکنش (DI0/RC) در گیاهان تحت تیمار نوری 30 درصد نور آبی + 50 درصد نور قرمز + 20 درصد نور سفید و نیز شاهد افزایش یافت. شاخص عملکرد بر پایه جذب انرژی نورانی در تیمار 30 درصد نور آبی + 70 درصد نور قرمز بالاتر بود به­طوری­که 25/74 درصد بیشتر از شاهد بود. نتایج پژوهش حاضر نشان داد که تیمارهای نوری ترکیبی مخصوصاً 30 درصد نور آبی + 70 درصد نور قرمز بیشترین تاثیر را در افزایش کارایی فتوسنتز و نور آبی و شاهد کمترین تاثیر را داشتند.



عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Different Light Spectra on Photosynthesis Yield of Hypoestes phyllostachya

نویسندگان [English]

  • D. Kazemi 1
  • M. Dehestani Ardakani 2
1 MSc student, Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Ardakan University, P.O. Box 184, Ardakan, Iran.
2 Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran
چکیده [English]

 Different aspects of light including intensity, quality (spectra), and duration (photoperiod) can influence plant growth and development. The growth and development of ornamental plants are also influenced by light intensity and quality. Energy saving in greenhouse production has received much attention lately. One reason for the interest in utilizing light quality to modulate plant growth and morphology is the recent development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a lighting source in greenhouse production. Such small diodes can easily be placed close to the canopy and can be used to apply a narrow-band light spectrum to the plants. Specific requirements for light spectral distribution for specific processes like morphogenesis, photosynthesis, chlorophyll and anthocyanin synthesis have been determined in different species. The aim of the current study was to investigate the biophysical properties of chlorophyll fluorescence of Hypoestes phyllostachya plants in response to different light spectra.
Materials and Methods
 Research experiments were conducted on Hypoestes phyllostachya in a completely randomized design with six treatments of different light quality and three replications. The seeds were planted in plugs and in a mixture of 70% peat moss and 30% perlite. Seedlings were grown in natural greenhouse (control) and LED (100% Blue, 15% Blue +85% Red, 30% Blue +70% Red, 15% Blue +65% Red + 20% White and 30% Blue +50% Red + 20% White). Since the main goal of the study was to compare the effect of LED light quality with sunlight in conventional greenhouse conditions. The LED treatments were applied from fourth month old seedlings until five weeks in a growth chamber with the light/dark regime of 15/9 hours, 23±5°C temperature, and 65±5% relative humidity. While, their pots in the greenhouse with 55±5 mol.m-2.d-1 DLI, 21±5°C average daily temperature and 65±5% relative humidity (Data logger 8808 temp. + RH) were regarded as the control treatment. After five weeks, the fluorescence chlorophyll was measured.
Selected leaves were dark-adapted prior to the measurements and OJIP protocol was applied using a fluorometer (FluorPen FP 100-MAX, photon system instruments, Drasov, Czech Republic). The fluorescence measurement was performed using a saturating. FluorPen software was used to extract data from the original measurement. Data extracted were used to analyze the following data according to the equations of the JIP test: fluorescence intensities at 50 μs (F 50 μs, considered as the F0), 2 ms (J-step denoted as FJ), 60 ms (I-step, FI), and maximum fluorescence intensity (FM, FP). The JIP-test was used to quantify the amount of energy that flow via the PSII. Performance index was measured on the absorption basis (PIABS, a multi-parametric expression). Probability that a trapped exaction promote an electron in electron transport chain (ETC) beyond the primary acceptor Quinone (QA−), maximum quantum efficiency of PSII (FV/FM), specific energy fluxes per reaction center (RC) for energy absorption (ABS/RC), trapped energy flux (TR0/RC), electron transport flux (ET0/RC) and dissipated energy flux (DI0/RC) were calculated according. Finally, the data were statistically analyzed with SAS (9.4) software package, and the means were compared by LSD test at p < 0.05 level.
Results and Discussion
 Fast Chl fluorescence induction curves (OJIP) was the main parameters used for the screening of different light treatments. OJIP test is shown to be a proxy to detect PSII bioenergetics and indicates changes in the status and function of PSII reaction centers, antenna, as well as in donor and acceptor sides of PSII. The maximum quantum yield of PSII (FV/FM) and relative maximal variable fluorescence (Fm/F0), significantly increased in 15% Blue +85% Red, 30% Blue +70% Red, 15% Blue +65% Red + 20% White. PIABS, one of the OIJP test parameters that provide valuable awareness about photosynthtic performance, considerably decreased under control and 30% Blue +50% Red + 20% White treatment. Unlike PIABS, ET0/RC did not show a significant difference under different treatments. The specific energy fluxes per RC for energy absorption (ABS/RC) significantly increased under control and 30% Blue +50% Red + 20% White treatment. TR0/RC increased in plants under control and 30% Blue +50% Red + 20% White treatment. Treated plants under 15% Blue +85% Red and 30% Blue +70% Red showed the lowest in dissipated energy flux (DI0/RC).  During an ideal condition without any additional stress, the total PSII pool can be completely inactivate and retrieve without a detectable photoinhibition.
 When plants exposed to 100% Blue and 30% Blue +50% Red + 20% White treatments as well as in control plants, FM/F0, FV/FM and PIABS significantly decreased.  Also ABS/RC, TR0/RC and DI0/RC, significantly increased. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Photosynthesis
  • Leaf chlorophyll fluorescence
  • Light quality
  • Light spectra
  • Plantlet
  1. Akoyunoglou, G., & Anni, H. (1984). Blue light effect on chloroplast development in higher plants. In: Senger H. (ed.), Blue Light Effects in Biological Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 397–406.
  2. Aliniaeifard, S., Seif, M., Arab, M., Zare Mehrjerdi, M., Li, T., & Lastochkina, O. (2018). Growth and photosynthetic performance of Calendula officinalis under monochromatic red light. International Journal of Horticultural Science 5: 123–132. https://doi.org/10.22059 /ijhst .2018.26104 2.248.
  3. Aliniaeifard, S., & Seifi Kalhor, M. (2017). Effects of blue light on photosynthesis of Tradescantia virginiana plants grown in different VPDs. Journal of Plant Research (Iranian Journal of Biology) 30(2): 420-428. (In Persian with English abstract)
  4. Appenroth, K.J., Keresztes, A., Sarvari, E., Jaglarz, A., & Fischer, W. (2003). Multiple effects of chromate on Spirodela polyrhiza: electron microscopy and biochemical investigations. Plant Biology 5: 315–323.
  5. Baker, N.R., & Rosenqvist, E. (2004). Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. Journal of Experimental Botany 55: 1607-1621.
  6. Baker, N.R. (2008). Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59:89–113.
  7. Bayat, L., Arab, M., Aliniaeifard, S., Seif, M., Lastochkina, O., & Li, T. (2018). Effects of growth under different light spectra on the subsequent high light tolerance in rose plants. AoB Plants 10: 052. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpl a/ply05 2.
  8. Bayat, L., Arab, M., & Aliniaeifard, S. (2020). Effects of different light spectra on high light stress tolerance in rose plants (Rosa hybrida ‘Samurai’). Journal of plant processes and function 9(36): 93-103. URL: http://jispp.iut.ac.ir/article-1-1146-fa.html. (In Persian with English abstract)
  9. Boureima, S., Oukarroum, A., Diouf, M., Cisse, N., & Van Damme, P. (2012). Screening for drought tolerance in mutant germplasm of sesame (Sesamum indicum) probing by chlorophyll a fluorescence. Environmental and Experimental Botany 81: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envex pbot.2012.02.015.
  10. Çiçek, N., Pekcan, V., Arslan, Ö., Erdal, Ş.Ç., Nalçaiyi, A.S.B., Çil, A.N., Şahin, V., Kaya, Y., & Ekmekçi, Y. (2019). Assessing drought tolerance in field-grown sunflower hybrids by chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics. Brazilian Journal of Botany 42: 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4041 5-019-00534-1.
  11. Fan, X.X., Xu, Z.G., Liu, X.Y., Tang, C.M., Wang, L.W., & Han, X.L. (2013). Effects of light intensity on the growth and leaf development of young tomato plants grown under a combination of red and blue light. Scientia Horticulturae 153: 50-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.01.017.
  12. Franklin, K.A., & Whitelam, G.C. (2005). Phytochromes and shade-avoidance responses in plants. Annals of Botany 96: 169-175. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci165.
  13. Fukuda, N., Ajima, C., Yukawa, T., & Olsen, J. (2016). Antagonistic action of blue and red light on shoot elongation in petunia depends on gibberellin, but the effects on flowering are not generally linked to gibberellin. Environmental and Experimental Botany 121: 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2015.06.014.
  14. Ghasemi Ghehsareh, M., & Kafi, M. (2015). Volume Two: Scientific and Practical floriculture (Second Edition). Publishing Author, Iran.
  15. 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 lighting. Journal of Experimental Botany 48: 1407-1413.
  16. Guha, A., Sengupta, D., & Reddy, A.R. (2013). Polyphasic chlorophyll a fluorescence kinetics and leaf protein analyses to track dynamics of photosynthetic performance in mulberry during progressive drought. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 119: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.12.006.
  17. Heijde, M., & Ulm, R. (2012). UV-B photoreceptor-mediated signaling in plants. Trends in Plant Science 17: 230-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.01.007.
  18. Hogewoning, S.W., Trouwborst, G., Maljaars, H., Poorter, H., van Ieperen, W., & Harbinson, J. (2010). Blue light dose-responses of leaf photosynthesis, morphology, and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combinations of red and blue light. Journal of Experimental Botany 61: 3107-3117. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq132.
  19. Jeong, S.W., Hogewoning, S.W., & van Ieperen, W. (2014). Responses of supplemental blue light on flowering and stem extension growth of cut chrysanthemum. Scientia Horticulturae 165: 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.11.006.
  20. Kalaji, H.M., Jajoo, A., Oukarroum, A., Brestic, M., Zivcak, M., Samborska, I.A., Cetner, M.D., Łukasik, I., Goltsev, V., & Ladle, R.J. (2016). Chlorophyll a fluorescence as a tool to monitor physiological status of plants under abiotic stress conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 38: 102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-016-2113-y.
  21. Kim, H.H., Goins, G.D., Wheeler, R.M., & Sager, J.C. (2004). Green-light supplementation for enhanced lettuce growth under red- and blue-light-emitting diodes. Horticultural Science 39: 1617-1622.
  22. Lee, T., Woo, S., Kwak, M., Inkyin, K., Lee, K., Jang, J., & Kim, I. (2016). Photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence responses of Populus sibirica to water deficit in a desertification area in Mongolia. Photosynthetica 54: 317–320
  23. Lichtenthaler, H., Langsdorf, G., Lenk, S., & Buschmann, C. (2005). Chlorophyll fluorescence imaging of photosynthetic activity with the flash-lamp fluorescence imaging system. Photosynthetica 43: 355–369.
  24. Lichtenthaler, H.K., Ač, A., Marek, M.V., Kalina, J., & Urban, O. (2007). Differences in pigment composition, photosynthetic rates and chlorophyll fluorescence images of sun and shade leaves of four tree species. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 45: 577–588
  25. Matsuda, R., Ohashi-Kaneko, K., Fujiwara, K., & Kurata, K. (2008). Effects of blue light deficiency on acclimation of light energy partitioning in PSII and CO2 assimilation capacity to high irradiance in spinach leaves. Plant Cell Physiology 49: 664-670. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcn041.
  26. Meng, L.L., Song, J.F., Wen, J., Zhang, J., & Wei, J.H.J.P. (2016). Effects of drought stress on fluorescence characteristics of photosystem II in leaves of Plectranthus scutellarioides. Photosynthetica 54: 414–421. https:doi.org/10.1007/s11099-016-0191-0.
  27. Morrow, R.C. (2007). LED light in horticulture. Horticultural Science 43: 1947-1950. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.43.7.1947.
  28. Mott, K.A. (2009). Opinion: Stomatal responses to light and CO2 depend on the mesophyll. Plant Cell & Environment 32: 1479-1486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02022.x.
  29. Neelam, S., & Subramanyam, R. (2013). Alteration of photochemistry and protein degradation of photosystem II from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii under high salt grown cells. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 124: 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2013.04.007.
  30. Nhut, D.T., Takamura, T., Watanabe, H., Okamoto, K., & Tanaka, M. (2003). Responses of strawberry plantlets cultured in vitro under super bright red and blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 73: 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022638508007.
  31. Oukarroum, A., El Madidi, S., Schansker, G., & Strasser, R.J. (2007). Probing the responses of barley cultivars (Hordeum vulgare ) by chlorophyll a fluorescence OLKJIP under drought stress and re-watering. Environmental and Experimental Botany 60: 438–446
  32. Prioul, J.L., Brangeon, J., & Reyss, A. (1980). Interaction between external and internal conditions in the development of photosynthetic features in a grass leaf: I. Regional responses along a leaf during and after low-light or high-light acclimation. Plant Physiology 66: 762–769
  33. Rapacz, M., Sasal, M., Kalaji, H.M., & Kościelniak, J. (2015). Is the OJIP Test a Reliable Indicator of Winter Hardiness and Freezing Tolerance of Common Wheat and Triticale under Variable Winter Environments? PloS one; 10: e0134820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134820.
  34. Runkle, E., & Blanchard, M. (2010). Use of lighting to accelerate crop timing. Greenhouse Grower, Available at: http:// www.flor.hrt.msu.edu/assets/PdfAttachments/Runkle-Blanchard-UseofLighting.pdf. (Visited 14 November 2018).
  35. Saebo, A., Krekling, T. & Appelgren, M. (1995). Light quality affects photosynthesis and leaf anatomy of brich plantlets in vitro. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 41: 177–185.
  36. Souza, R., Machado, E., Silva, J., Lagôa, A., & Silveira, J. (2004). Photosynthetic gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and some associated metabolic changes in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) during water stress and recovery. Environmental and Experimental Botany 51: 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(03)00059-5.
  37. Strasser, R.J., Srivastava, A., & Tsimilli-Michael, M. (2000). The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. Probing Photosynthesis: Mechanisms, Regulation and Adaptation 25: 445-483.
  38. Whitelam, G.C., & Halliday, K.J. (2008). Light and Plant Development. Annual Plant Reviews. Vol. 30. John Wiley & Sons.
  39. Yeh, N., & Chung, J.P. (2009). High-brightness LEDs-energy efficient lighting sources and their potential in indoor plant cultivation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 2175-2180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.01.027.
  40. Yu, W., Liu, Y., Song, L., Jacobs, D.F., Du, X., Ying, Y., Shao, Q., & Wu, J. (2017). Effect of differential light quality on morphology, photosynthesis, and antioxidant enzyme activity in Camptotheca acuminata seedlings. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 36: 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-016-9625-y.
  41. Zivcak, M., Brestic, M., & Kalaji, H.M. (2014). Photosynthetic responses of sun-and shade-grown barley leaves to high light: is the lower PSII connectivity in shade leaves associated with protection against excess of light? Photosynthesis research 119: 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-014-9969-8.