Abstract
As it is critical that plant growers improve the efficiency of their lighting when it uses artificial lighting, the lighting efficiency should be evaluated properly. One possible way to evaluate the lighting efficiency is to compare the amount of biomass produced per unit of energy used to irradiate the plants. A simpler index uses the fraction of the light energy or photons received by plants. Lighting efficiency can also be evaluated from the viewpoint of how much the irradiance/photon flux density on leaf surfaces can be improved. It is useful to obtain information of canopy structure or leaf spatial distribution in addition to determining plant mass (dry weight, fresh weight, or LAI) increments for evaluating the lighting efficiency. Modeling leaf growth and development can be used for this purpose.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Electrical energy use efficiency
- Energy consumption
- Functional–structural plant model
- Light use efficiency
- L-system
- PPFD distribution
- Radiation use efficiency
- Reflection image
1 Introduction
Although the use of artificial lighting in plant production has been increasing, little attention has been paid to the efficiency of the lighting (Ibaraki and Shigemoto 2013). As artificial lighting consumes energy, thereby increasing the cost of production, it is critical that plant growers improve the efficiency of their lighting. One possible solution is to use lamps with high luminous efficacy. However, lighting efficiency also depends on the arrangement of the lamps and/or the plant canopy structure being irradiated. The total luminous flux emitted by a lamp may not always irradiate the plant body, and unnecessary irradiation is often produced by artificial lighting, particularly when the plant canopy has a low leaf area index (LAI). The plant canopy structure changes as the plants grow during cultivation. Accordingly, the light environment also changes in line with the change in the canopy structure, even if the light source, lighting direction, and distance from plants remain constant. The lighting efficiency may therefore change with plant growth, and the dynamics of this process should be evaluated properly.
Lighting efficiency can be evaluated from several viewpoints. First, the efficiency can be evaluated in terms of energy conversion efficiency, comparing biomass production per unit of energy used for the irradiating light. A simpler index uses the fraction of the light energy or photons received by plants. It is also important to understand the extent to which the irradiance (W m−2) or photon flux density (mol m−2 s−1) is improved by the artificial lighting because the objective of artificial lighting is to irradiate the leaves and increase the irradiance/photon flux density on them for photosynthesis or other light-induced biological processes.
In this chapter, the evaluation methods for lighting efficiency are introduced, focusing on the energy use efficiency and the photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) distribution on the canopy surface provided by artificial lighting. The use of plant growth modeling for estimating the lighting efficiency will also be discussed.
2 Light Energy Received by Leaves
2.1 Light Use Efficiency
Plants absorb light energy and convert it into chemical energy stored as organic matter (biomass). The lighting efficiency can therefore be assessed by the energy conversion efficiency. One possible way to evaluate the efficiency is to compare the amount of biomass produced per unit of energy used to irradiate the plants or those absorbed by the plants.
A ratio between accumulated biomass and the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) absorbed by plants is sometimes referred to as light use efficiency (LUE) or radiation use efficiency (RUE), having units of μg J−1, and has been used as an index for assessing canopy productivity (Gitelson and Gamon 2015) for natural ecosystems or field crops. This approach is based on Monteith’s observation (1972) that the net primary productivity of the plant canopy is proportional to the intercepted solar radiation (Rosati and Dejong 2003). However, the lack of a universally agreed definition of LUE may cause difficulties in comparison of the results from different studies (McCallum et al. 2009). The denominators of LUE range from simple incident PAR (or PPFD), through total PAR absorbed (intercepted), to total PAR absorbed by green vegetation (photosynthetically active leaves) (Gitelson and Gamon 2015). The numerator is also variable and may be net primary production (NPP) (g C), gross primary production (GPP) (g C), weight of biomass (g), or weight of aboveground biomass (g). In botanical studies, LUE is often evaluated as the slope of a light photosynthetic curve or a quantum yield of oxygen evolution, having units of mol mol−1. When referring to LUEs or RUEs reported in the literature, the definition and method of measurement must be specified.
LUE varies between crops, depending on the plant physiological status, including the nitrogen status (Rosati and Dejong 2003), as well as environmental conditions such as temperature or CO2 concentration. Table 11.1 shows the LUEs for several crops are expressed in terms of dry mass formed (μg) per unit of PAR absorbed (J).
2.2 Ratio of Light Energy Received by the Plants
An alternative index uses the fraction of light energy or photons received by the plants to evaluate the lighting efficiency. The ratio of the PAR (PARP) received at the plant canopy surface to that (PARL) emitted from the lamps, often referred to as the “utilization factor” in illumination engineering (Kozai 2013), can be used for this purpose. The ratio of PARP to PARL depends not only on the lamp properties (i.e., spatial distribution of the light intensity emitted from the lamp) but also on the canopy structure. The ratio thus changes over time. Improving the ratio of PARP to PARL is a way to minimize the unnecessary irradiation, reduce energy consumption, and consequently lower the cost of production.
2.3 Improving Electrical Energy Use Efficiency
For crop production under artificial lighting, electrical energy use efficiency estimated based on the power consumption is also an important index to evaluate the lighting efficiency. The methods of estimation of the electrical energy use efficiency are described in detail in Chap. 29.
Various methods can be considered to improve the electrical energy use efficiency (Kozai 2013). These methods can be divided into the following approaches: improving the energy efficiency of a light source, improving the ratio of PARP to PARL, and improving the LUE based on the plant physiological (photosynthetic) properties (Fig. 11.1).
A direct method for improving the energy efficiency is to use a light source with a high luminous efficacy (lm W−1) as described before. The energy efficiency of LEDs and LED lighting systems was described in detail in Chap. 29.
To improve the ratio of PARP to PARL, it is important to minimize unnecessary irradiation. The ratio can be improved by well-designed light reflectors or by a reduction in the vertical distance between lamps and plants (Massa et al. 2008). Reflectors may be placed behind (above) the lamps to direct the backward light to the forward (downward) or on the side of the cultivation tray to minimize the amount of light irradiated outside the tray. The reduction of distance between lamps and plants also leads to minimizing the amount of light irradiated outside the plant canopy. Moreover, controlling the lighting direction may also be effective, depending on the canopy structure and spatial distribution of the lamps. Plant density also affects the ratio of PARP to PARL (Kozai 2013; Yokoi et al. 2003; Massa et al. 2008).
The electrical energy use efficiency can be improved from the aspects of both irradiation time and position, based on the physiological properties of the plants, i.e., when plants are irradiated and which parts of plants are irradiated affect the efficiency. For example, the net photosynthetic rate of the upper leaves that have already received light at a high level (near the light saturation level) may not be increased by further increasing PPFD by supplemental lighting. On the other hand, the net photosynthetic rate of the lower leaves, which is often negative or nearly zero, will become positive by increasing PPFD. From this point of view, the interplant lighting provides more light energy to the lower leaves than downward lighting only, potentially improving the light energy use efficiency (Kozai 2013; Massa et al. 2008).
The timing of lighting is also important for supplemental lighting. It has been reported that lighting during the night period is effective for promoting the growth of lettuce (Fukuda et al. 2004), and end-of-day lighting is effective in controlling plant morphological events (e.g., Yang et al. 2012). Furthermore, diurnal variation of LUE has been reported (e.g., Mukherjee et al. 2014).
3 Lighting Efficiency Based on PPFD Distribution on a Canopy Surface
PPFD on a leaf surface is critical for plant production. Lighting efficiency can also be evaluated from the viewpoint of how much the PPFD on leaf surfaces can be improved.
A method of evaluating the efficiency of supplemental lighting based on PPFD distribution on a canopy surface under artificial lighting conditions was developed (Ibaraki and Shigemoto 2013), and several indices for lighting efficiency derived from the PPFD distribution histogram estimated by using a reflection image of the canopy surface were proposed. In this method, the reflection images of plant canopy surfaces were acquired from three directions with a digital camera, and PPFD on leaf surfaces was estimated from the pixel values of the image by a regression model determined from PPFD measured at one point on the canopy simultaneously with imaging (see Chap. 10 for details). Then, the histogram of the pixel values after gamma correction was converted to a PPFD histogram (Fig. 11.2). To characterize the PPFD distribution, an average PPFD, a median PPFD, and the coefficient of variances (CV) of PPFD over the illuminated canopy surface were calculated from the PPFD histogram. Integrated PPFD over all illuminated leaves per unit power consumption (IPPC) was then proposed as a criterion for evaluating the efficiency of supplemental lighting. IPPC was calculated by the following equation:
The projected leaf area was estimated from the image of the canopy surface by selecting pixels corresponding to leaves. Ibaraki and Shigemoto (2013) reported that the histogram pattern of PPFD on a tomato plant canopy surface under supplemental lighting depended on the light source and canopy structure. Histograms estimated from images could depict the differences, showing average values and CVs close to the measured values. The IPPC also depended on the types of light sources, canopy structures, and the distance between lamps and the canopy surfaces.
Bornwaβer and Tantau (2012) calculated a similar index, the energy efficiency with PPFD (μmol s−1 W−1), to evaluate the lighting efficiency of the LED lighting system in in vitro culture. They calculated the index for both average PPFD and PPFD at the center of the irradiated surface to represent the PPFD distribution.
When artificial lights are used, it is easy to convert PPFD into total photon flux density or irradiance because, for the same light source, the light spectrum is constant. Therefore, these PPFD-based methods can be applied for supplemental lighting, which should be evaluated by total photon flux density or irradiance rather than by PPFD. If irradiance is used instead of PPFD, the integrated irradiance per unit power consumption is dimensionless (W m−2 × m2/W).
It is important to know the actual irradiance/photon flux density on the plant canopy surface not only to evaluate the lighting efficiency but also to improve stability and repeatability in controlling the environmental conditions when supplemental lighting is used. The image-based PPFD histogram estimation method is also expected to be used for this purpose (Ibaraki and Shigemoto 2013).
4 Plant Growth Modeling for Evaluating Lighting Efficiency
4.1 Simple Growth Model
Plant growth modeling is an effective tool for understanding light distribution and estimating the lighting efficiency. For vegetative growth, an exponential model is often used. Assuming that the relative growth rate (RGR) or the relative leaf area growth rate (RLGR) is constant during a given period, growth (in terms of dry weight, W, or leaf area, L) can be expressed as exponential growth (an exponential function of time t, see Fig. 11.3a) by the following equations:
where W 0 and L 0 are initial values of W and L, respectively.
For leafy vegetables and seedlings that are dominant crops in a plant factory with artificial lights, such exponential models are often used to estimate the vegetative growth. For example, Yokoi et al. (2003) used an exponential model to fit the increments in LAI and dry weight and to calculate the electrical energy use efficiency in the production of tomato seedlings under artificial lighting.
For individual plants, such as seedlings growing without competition between neighbors, RGR is assumed to be constant (Monteith 2000) under constant environmental conditions. However, RGR may decline if there is competition for resources (Monteith 2000). In addition, RGR depends on both environmental conditions and plant physiological state, such as leaf nitrogen content. Models for changing RGR include an expolinear model (Goudriaan and Monteith 1990; Dennett and Ishag 1998; Monteith 2000) available for longer period of growth (Fig. 11.3b), a model expressing RGR as a function of temperature and PAR (Aikman and Scaife 1993), and a model using a Gompertz function (Shimizu et al. 2008).
4.2 2D and 3D Modeling for Vegetative Growth
It is useful to obtain (simulate) information of canopy structure or leaf spatial distribution in addition to determining plant mass (dry weight, fresh weight, or LAI) increments for evaluating lighting efficiency. Therefore, modeling leaf growth and development is effective. Leaves of vascular plants are arranged in an orderly, often spectacular pattern (Lubkin 1995). Normally, the leaf arrangement pattern, i.e., phyllotaxis , depends on plant species or cultivar and includes alternate, opposite, whorled, and rosulate patterns (Fig. 11.4). It is useful to know the leaf arrangement pattern of the target plant for modeling leaf growth and development. Considering both this pattern and the spectral distribution of light, we may estimate the PARP/PARL ratio.
Recently, 3D measurements, including lidar (Hosoi and Omasa 2009) and stereo imaging (Biskup et al. 2007; Müller-Linow et al. 2015), have been used to analyze plant canopy structure. From 3D data of plant architecture, leaf angle distribution and leaf area density distribution, which are important parameters, can be estimated.
Models for simulating the 3D architecture of plants have been developed based mainly on L-systems or similar approaches (Fournier and Andrieu 1998). An L-system, developed by Lindenmayer (1968), is a string rewriting system and is a powerful tool to model the growth of plants (Fournier and Andrieu 1998). In general, rewriting is a technique for defining complex objects by successively replacing parts of a simple initial object using a set of rewriting rules or productions (Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer 1990). In an L-system , plant architecture is represented by a string symbol, each symbol representing a plant component such as a leaf or internode (Kaitaniemi et al. 2000). A simple example of L-systems is shown in Fig. 11.5. Plant growth and development can be simulated by the symbols changing according to the production rules. A comprehensive overview of the simulation of plant development using L-systems is reviewed by Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer (1990).
Recently, new computer models of plant functioning and growth, called functional–structural plant models (FSPMs) , have been developed (Godin and Sinoquet 2005). FSPMs combine the representation of 3D plant structure with selected physiological functions, consisting of an architectural part (plant structure) and a process part (plant functioning) (Vos et al. 2010). In FSPMs, L-systems are often adopted as a paradigm to model plant development (Godin and Sinoquet 2005). FSPMs were used to compare lamp positioning scenarios to identify the most efficient lighting strategy in greenhouse production of tomatoes, being combined with 3D models of light distribution from the lamps and greenhouse architecture (Visser et al. 2012, 2014).
References
Aikman DP, Scaife A (1993) Modelling plant growth under varying environmental conditions in a uniform canopy. Ann Bot 72:485–492
Biskup B, Scharr H, Schurr U et al (2007) A stereo imaging system for measuring structural parameters of plant canopies. Plant Cell Environ 30:1299–1308
Bornwaβer T, Tantau HJ (2012) Evaluation of LED lighting system in in vitro cultures. Acta Hortic 956:555–560
de Visser PHB, Buck-Sorlin GH, van der Heijden GWAM et al (2012) A 3D model of illumination, light distribution and crop photosynthesis to simulate lighting strategies in greenhouses. Acta Hortic 956:195–200
de Visser PHB, Buck-Sorlin GH, van der Heijden GWAM (2014) Optimizing illumination in the greenhouse using a 3D model of tomato and a ray tracer. Front Plant Sci 5(48):1–7
Dennett MD, Ishag KHM (1998) Use of the expolinear model to analyse the growth of faba bean, peas and lentils at three densities: predictive use of the model. Ann Bot 82:507–512
Dorais M (2003) The use of supplemental lighting for vegetable crop production: light intensity, crop response, nutrition, crop management, cultural practices. Canadian Greenhouse Conference, 9 Oct 2003, Toronto http://www.agrireseau.qc.ca/legumesdeserre/Documents/CGC-Dorais2003fin2.PDF. Accessed on 25 Dec 2015
Fournier C, Andrieu B (1998) A 3D architectural and process-based model of maize development. Ann Bot 81:233–250
Fukuda N, Nishimura S, Fumiki Y (2004) Effect supplemental lighting during the period from middle of night to morning on photosynthesis and leaf thickness of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and tsukena (Brassica campestris L.). Acta Hortic 633:237–244
Gitelson AA, Gamon JA (2015) The need for a common basis for defining light-use efficiency: implications for productivity estimation. Remote Sens Environ 156:196–201
Godin C, Sinoquet H (2005) Functional-structural plant modeling. New Phytol 166:705–708
Goudriaan J, Monteith JL (1990) A mathematical function for crop growth based on light interception and leaf area expansion. Ann Bot 66:695–701
Hosoi F, Omasa K (2009) Estimating vertical leaf area density profiles of tree canopies using three-dimensional portable lidar imaging. In: Bretar F et al (eds) Laser scanning, vol XXXVIII, Part 3/W8. IAPRS, France, pp 152–157
Ibaraki Y, Shigemoto C (2013) Estimation of supplemental lighting efficiency based on PPFD distribution on the canopy surface. J Agric Meteorol 69:47–54
Javanovic NZ, Annandale JG, Mhlauli NC (1999) Field water balance and SWB parameter determination of six winter vegetation species. Water SA 25:191–196
Kaitaniemi P, Hanan JS, Room PM (2000) Virtual sorghum: visualisation of partitioning and morphogenesis. Comput Electron Agric 28:195–205
Kozai T (2013) Resource use efficiency of closed plant production system with artificial light: concept, estimation and application to plant factory. Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci 89:447–461
Lindenmayer A (1968) Mathematical models for cellular interaction in development, I and II. J Theor Biol 18:280–315
Lubkin S (1995) Book review of phyllotaxis: a systemic study in plant morphogenesis (Jean RV, 1994). Bull Math Biol 57:377–379
Massa GD, Kim H-H, Wheeler RM et al (2008) Plant productivity in response to LED lighting. HortScience 43:1951–1956
McCallum I, Wagner W, Schmullius C et al (2009) Satellite-based terrestrial production efficiency modeling. Carbon Balance Manag 4:8. doi:10.1186/1750-0680-4-8
Monteith JL (1972) Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 9:744–766
Monteith JL (2000) Fundamental equations for growth in uniform stands of vegetation. Agric For Meteorol 104:5–11
Mukherjee J, Singh G, Bal SK (2014) Radiation use efficiency and instantaneous photosynthesis at different growth stages of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in semi arid ecosystem of central Punjab, India. J Agrometeorology 16:69–77
Müller-Linow M, Pinto-Espinosa F, Scharr H et al (2015) The leaf angle distribution of natural plant populations: assessing the canopy with a novel software tool. Plant Method 11:11. doi:10.1186/s13007-015-0052-z
Prusinkiewicz P, Lindenmayer A (1990) Graphical modeling using L-systems, in the algorithmic beauty of plants, part of the series the virtual laboratory. Springer, New York, pp 1–50
Rosati A, Dejong TM (2003) Estimating photosynthetic radiation use efficiency using incident light and photosynthesis of individual leaves. Ann Bot 91:869–877
Sands PJ (1999) 6.4.2 light use efficiency. In: Atwell BJ et al (eds) Plants in action. Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Available via DIALOG. http://plantsinaction.science.uq.edu.au/edition1/ofsubordinatedocument. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
Shimizu H, Kushisa M, Fujinuma W (2008) A growth model for leaf lettuce under greenhouse environments. Environ Control Biol 46:211–219
Tei F, Scaife A, Aikman DP (1996) Growth of lettuce, onion, and red beet. 1. Growth analysis, light interception and radiation use efficiency. Ann Bot 78:633–643
Vos J, Evers JB, Buck-Sorlin GH et al (2010) Functional–structural plant modeling: a new versatile tool in crop science. J Exp Bot 61:2101–2115
Yang Z-C, Kubota C, Chia P-L et al (2012) Effect of end-of-day far-red light from a movable LED fixture on squash rootstock hypocotyl elongation. Sci Hortic 136:81–86
Yokoi S, Kozai T, Ohyama K et al (2003) Effects of leaf area index of tomato seedling population on energy utilization efficiencies in a closed transplant production system. J SHITA 15:231–238 (in Japanese with English abstract)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ibaraki, Y. (2016). Lighting Efficiency in Plant Production Under Artificial Lighting and Plant Growth Modeling for Evaluating the Lighting Efficiency. In: Kozai, T., Fujiwara, K., Runkle, E. (eds) LED Lighting for Urban Agriculture. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1848-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1848-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-1846-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-1848-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)