Potato seed production in different culture system and under LEDs light

Chapter 1:

 

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Potato seed production in different culture system and under LEDs light
Get a plagiarism free paperJust from $13/Page
Order Essay

Optimization of potato growing season inthe fall time and analysis of growth and yield Performance of two Potato Varieties in two Different nutrient solutions as well as aeroponics system in two different locations..

 

 

Potato(Solanume Tubersum L.) is a customized stem and inauguration of potato tuber is generally controlled by divers hormonal as well as environmental factors for instance temperature, photoperiod, irradiance with nutrients in particular Nitrogen.(1)Various plant outgrowth legislators have been conducted to inhibit vegetative growth and enhance tubers growth.(2) potato crop plants vegetative growth originated by tubers, which implicates the obtainability of pathogen-free growing materials. The revolution of potato production industry is institution of micro tuber seed and mini tuber seed, as a result it has shorten up the cycle of field and acquire the ample number of potato seed, consequently guaranteed a elevated level healthy base materials(3) which is convenient for genetic advancement program, however it also has some drawbacks if the quality is not controlled in a systematic way in the production program aftereffect the seed tubers execute indulgence the desperation of diseases. Originally, the way of seed production of potato, structure three cycles: (i) in vitro micro propagation and micro-tuber production in aseptic condition in laboratory condition (ii) in greenhouse condition pre-basic mini-tuber seed production and (iii) in open-field condition basic seed-tuber production. The pre-basic mini-tuber seed production is based on supreme quality basic materials, either pathogen-free in vitro produced plantlets or aseptic micro-tubers. (4).Mini-tuber seed production in greenhouse conditions generally performed by traditional methods that confide in substrate solid (usually soil and peat) with the innate risk of taint from soil-borne disorders and need to sterilize. In pre-basic schemes, mini-tuber seed potato production repeatedly is showing depressed productivity in the ordinary substrate-based strait. (5), the yield of mini-tuber is 3-5 tubers per plant, which has contributed to enhancing the costs of seed tuber production.

In the mini-tuber seed production system, divers substitute methods are using like soilless growing techniques(6,7) Apropos increasing the multiplication pace of seed production in vitro system, various approaches including hydroponic or NFT (nutrient film techniques) systems have been conducted from the last ten years(9).However, maximum number of these methods have some intense abridgement on account of ample air supply in roots. Potato growing in hydroponics techniques, formation of tuber is always is suppressed when roots yet stolons are dipped in the water of nutrient solution.(10)It has impoverished tuberization, certainly the culture techniques of deep-water and cultivate lately has inhibited standard of hydroponics culture system for cultivating seed potatoes, when the roots yet stolon grow up well and fills the container it has tuberization (11).Aeroponics, which is a certain kind of hydroponics techniques, is randomly impregnated with a wet spark of a water of nutrient solutions where the plants roots are enclosed to  completely dark environment except substrate.(12) Aeroponics such a techniques which is familiar all over the world together with Asia, Europe, North and South America to produce potato-mini tuber for commercial and research purpose.(13) Aeroponic has a certain contravention has anticipated to the exceeding outgrowth Agronomy2014, 4 516 of the leafage as well as root system along with the expansion of the vegetal period.(15)In aeroponic culture system inside the culture chamber easily enter air where is completely dark where periodically spark water along with nutrient.(18) Waste less water is the principal convenience of the culture system along with lofty sanitary quality with elevated multiplication rate as well as stepped harvest.(18,19)

In hydroponics as well as aeroponics culture system a significant measure is Electrical Conductivity (EC), which reflects the entire ions concentration in the water with nutrient. The EC intuitions the Nutrient intellection, plants vegetative growth, yield as well as quality. The entire ion concentration is individual of the EC as well as it is similar in every case.(20) Normally the standard of EC deterioration by 1.5 and 3 dS m−1 for maximum hydroponic plants (21).The standards of EC switching in cultivating season (22), However Extention from 1.2 (23) to 1.7-2.2 dS m−1 (24) various exercises for potatoes. Strong vegetal growth plants have grown in hydroponics culture techniques whereas apply high concentrated EC levels, where plants show delicate and unproductive when the concentration levels of EC is too poor. (25).

Generally, all the genotype has a potent influence of culture environment, genotype along with environment has an impact on yield.(14,15) Climate, day-length, nutrient content with genotype make-up of cultivars are strong and divers with multiple performances (16,17).The production of potatoes can affect by the cultivating season (26).In the Northeastern territory of Sao Paulo, Brazil can grow seed potatoes in two cultivating seasons, like Autumn/Winter, Winter/Spring, because of the elevation and weather conditions of that province. Winter/Spring season is promising for the production of minituber seed potatoes (27), However, the season of Fall/Winter has been evaluated.

The objective of this study was thus to determine the effect of the different growing seasons.

Materials and Methods

 

Plant Material and Growing Conditions

The aeroponic culture was performed with two cultivars, Golden King (mid-early maturing),Happy king (mid-early maturing). Healthy tissue culture materials have been supplied “Potato Gene Bank” Kangwon National University Chuncheon, South Korea. This study was conducted to determine the dependent (growth and yields) variables under the diver’s aeroponic system in semi control greenhouse at two different places Chuncheon, Gangwon Province,South Korea, and different nutrient conditions in the potato bulking period. EC levels 1.5 dS m−1.Temperature daytime was ranging between 16°C to 26°C and night time was 8°C to 12°C. Plants grew under a 12-hr photoperiod. Relative humidity levels in the greenhouse ranged between 35%-40% in both greenhouses.

 

Greenhouse 1:

Growing Area

Greenhouse 1 is in Kangwon National University Green House Chuncheon, Gangwon do province South Korea.

Nutrients solutions

Transplantation to 40 th day  has been supplied vegetative growth period solutions and from 41 th day to until harvesting has been supplied the potato bulking periods nutrient solutions

 

 

 

 

 

Chemical Name Vegetative Growth Period

(Transplantation to 40 thDay)

Tuber Bulking Period

(41th days to Harvesting day)

A Tank(50L) B Tank(50L) A Tank(50L) B Tank(50L)
Ca(‎NO3) 1.5    kg 7.66 kg
KNO3 3.79 kg 3.79 kg 3.54 kg 3.54 kg
(NH4)2HPO4 1.6 kg 1.52 kg
MgSO4 4.3 kg 3.68 kg
K2SO4 1.3 kg
Fe 460 g 460 g 30.8 g
MnSO4 30.8g
BH3O3 57.2 g 57.2 g
ZnSO4 3.6 g 3.6 g
CuSO4 1.3 g   1.3 g
(NH4)2O∙mMoO3∙H2O   0.4 g   0.4 g

 

Greenhouse  2:

Growing Area

Greenhouse 2is in the countryside of Chuncheon city, Gangwon do province South Korea

Nutrients solutions

Vegetative growth period (Transplantation to 40 th day and tuber bulking period (from 41 th day to until harvesting) has been supplied the same nutrient solutions which is supply for vegetative growth period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chemical Name Vegetative Growth Period and Tuber Bulking period

(Transplantation to Harvest)

A Tank(50L) B Tank(50L)
Ca(‎NO3) 1.5    kg
KNO3 3.79 kg 3.79 kg
(NH4)2HPO4 1.6 kg
MgSO4 4.3 kg
K2SO4
Fe 460 g
MnSO4 30.8g
BH3O3 57.2 g
ZnSO4 3.6 g
CuSO4 1.3 g
(NH4)2O∙mMoO3∙H2O   0.4 g

 

Transplantation Time:

First Transplantation

Early or first transplantation cycle date was September 3, 2019 in the two different  green house; Spacing with plant to plant distance and raw to raw distance, 0.15-m row spacing and 0.15-m plants to plants distance.

Second Transplantation

Second or late transplantation was in October 14. And the photo period, temperature, Relative humidity, plants spacing is same as early transplantation.

Plant Foliage and Growth Habit:

Plant foliage structure, plant growth habit, plant foliage structure leaf openness, secondary leaflets, lateral leaflets, flowering, flower coalescence, tuberization has been determined after 50 day after transplantation (DAT).

Growth Response:

The plants morphological parameters has been measured were shoot fresh weight, percentage shoot dry matter, stolon length, stolon volume root length, root dry matter content, and tuber initiation. Three plants were sampled at 50 DAT between late October and early November. Shoots were separated for fresh weight determination and then ovendried at 85°C for more than 48 h for dry weight determination. The percentage of shoot dry matter was calculated as the ratio of dry weight to fresh weight. The longest stolon from each plant was recorded for stolon length.

 

Photo Synthetic Pigments:

For the determination of photosynthetic pigments, the freeze-dried (50 mg) leaves were extracted (10 mL of 80% acetone) and placed at room temperature for 15 min. The collected extract was transferred into a tube and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min. The absorbance was taken at 647, 663 and 470 nm, respectively using a spectrophotometer (UV-1800 240 V, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, Total chlorophyll and Carotenoid were determined according to the formula (Lichtenthaler et al., 1987) and expressed as mg g−1 DW:

 

Chl a = 12.25 × A663 − 2.79 × A647

Chl b = 21.50 × A647 − 5.10 × A663

TCh = 7.15 × A663 + 18.71 × A647

Car = 1000 × A470 − 1.82 × Chl a − 85.02 × Chl b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results:

 

Table 1: 50 DAT Plant Morphological Data. Experiment 1(A) and Experiment 2 (B).

 

Location Varieties Planting time Parameters
Plant Height BN LN LL LW RL RV SL SV
Location 1 V48 EP 76.61±2.96 a 3.33±0.57 a 15.6±2.08 a 21.73±2.53 a 11.63±1.18 a 52.19±6.16 a 5.22±0.94 a 60.59±5.44 a 5.36±0.66 b
LP 45.55±5.2 bc 2.66±0.41 ab 12.33±1.52 b 18.86±1.85 ab 7.23±1.45 b 36.14±1.89 cd 3.2±0.34 cd 27.62±4.4 c 1.53±0.37 d
N198 EP 50.71±4.19 b 3±1 a 15.66±2.8 a 17.21±2.6 abc 7.53±0.51 b 35.17±2.49 d 3.87±0.43 bc 40.98±1.68 b 5.42±.72 ab
LP 36.73±2.63 cd 1.66±.52 bc 12.66±2.51 b 14.73±1.18 bc 6.44±.87 b 26.19±2.17 e 2.54±.33 d 15.2±1.78 d 0.72±0.06 d
Location 2 V48 EP 68.66±7.02 a 3±1 a 16.33±2.51 a 19.66±3.51 b 12.33±3.05 a 45.33±7.50 ab 4.61±1.23 ab 51.15±9.22 ab 6.68±1.01 a
LP 35.33±6.02 d 1.33±0.57 c 11±2 bc 17.33±3.4 abc 9.33±3.21 ab 27±5.56 e 3.14±0.29 cd 42.66±5.68 b 4.71±.77 bc
N198 EP 55.66±8.62 b 1.66±0.41 bc 15±2 a 18.33±4.5 abc 9.81±2.37 ab 43.33±4.52 bc 5.41±.72 a 49±7.78 ab 3.75±1.25 c
LP 34.33±2.08 d 1±0.0 c 9.3±31.52 c 13.66±1.65 c 7.43±1.01 b 21.33±2.08 e 2.43±0.6 d 17.33±3.05 cd 1.66±0.2 d
                     
  df                  
Location 1 ns ** Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns **
Varieties 1 *** * Ns ** * *** Ns *** ***
Planting time 1 *** ** *** * ** *** *** *** ***
Location x variety 1 *** *** Ns * ** *** * *** ***
Location x planting time 1 *** *** *** * ** *** *** *** ***
Variety x planting time 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Location x variety x planting time 1 *** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** ***
LSD(0.05) 9.98 1.14 2.23 4.99 3.49 8.1 2.19 11.73 1.29

 

The values are treatment means± standard deviations. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments in the same columns.

LSD, least significant difference, p≤0.05. Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

 

Plant growth responses

Plant morphological parameters varied with respect to planting time, varietal differences, and location (Table 1). From the results, it was seen that plant height, branch number, leaf number, leaf length, leaf width, root length, root volume, stolon length and stolon volume ranged from 35.33±6.02 – 76.61±2.96 cm, 1±0.0 – 3.33±0.57, 9.3±31.52 – 16.33±2.51, 13.66±1.65 – 21.73±2.53 cm, 6.44±.87 – 12.33±3.05 cm, 21.33±2.08 – 52.19±6.16 cm, 2.43±0.6 – 5.41±.72 cm3, 15.2±1.78 – 60.59±5.44 cm and 0.72±0.06 – 6.68±1.01 cm3 respectively. Significant differences were also observed in branch number and stolon volume in case of the two experimental locations. On the other hand, all but leaf length and root volume in case of variety and all parameters in case of planting time showed significant differences. Significant differences were also observed  in location x planting time, variety x planting time and location x variety x planting time interaction in case of all parameters, while except leaf length all parameters also showed significant differences in location x variety interaction as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 1: 50 DAT Shoot, Root, Stolon Dry Matter Content. Experiment 1(A,B) and Experiment 2 (C,D).

 

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

Dry matter content (DM%)

(Fig 1)has illustrated that the plant, shoot, root and, stolon dry matter content. And the parameters have changed because of transplantation time, genotype and location. It has seen that the range of shoot, root and, stolon dry matter content from 4.52±0.41-6.76±1.09, 4.77±0.52-9.57±0.98

and 4.7±0.32-8.09±0.52 respectively. The cultivar Golden king transplanted early in the Farmersgreenhouse shows the best result in shoot dry matter content (6.76±1.09) and lowest in the same greenhouse (4.52±0.41) in Happy King variety. Whereas In University greenhouse Lately transplanted Happy king variety show slightly higher result then Early transplanted Happy King. The Happy kingvariety early transplanted one show the highest result in root dry matter content 9.57±0.98 in farmer’ greenhouse location 2. and lowest in the University greenhouse 4.77±0.52. For stolon dry matter content,in the location two Mr. Farmer’s greenhouse, Lately transplanted Happy King shows the best result (8.09±0.52) comparatively two times higher than in the university greenhouse in the same time same variety around (4.7±0.32). Golden king variety in the two greenhouse show quite the same results location 1 and location 2 respectively 7.74±0.59 and 7.38±0.49.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: 50 DAT Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Content. Experiment 1(A) and Experiment 2 (B).

Location Varieties Planting time Parameters
Car Chl a Chl b Total Chl
Location 1 V48 EP 3.02±0.05 a 0.09±.01cde 0.07±.01 a 0.16±0.04 b
LP 2.83±.03 c 0.07±0.01 e 0.06±0.01 a 0.13±0.02 c
N198 EP 3.08±0.09 a 0.13±0.02 a 0.08±0.01 a 0.21±0.04 a
LP 2.9±.01 bc 0.07±0.01 de 0.07±0.01 a 0.14±0.03 bc
Location 2 V48 EP 3.03±0.05 a 0.13±0.02 a 0.08±0.01 a 0.21±0.03 a
LP 2.64±0.08 d 0.11±0.03 abc 0.08±0.02 a 0.19±0.04 a
N198 EP 2.96±0.07 ab 0.12±0.03 a 0.07±0.01 a 0.19±0.04 a
LP 2.87±0.06 bc 0.11±0.02 ab 0.07±0.01 a 0.19±0.02 a
    df        
Location 1 * *** * ***
Varieties 1 * ns ns ns
Planting time 1 *** ns ns *
Location x variety 1 ** ** * ***
Location x planting time 1 *** *** * ***
Variety x planting time 1 *** ns ns ns
Location x variety x planting time 1 *** ** ns ***
LSD(0.05) 0.12 0.02 0.02  0.02
Location Varieties Planting time Parameters
Car Chl a Chl b Total Chl
Location 1 V48 EP 3.02±0.05 a 0.09±.01 cde 0.07±.01 a 0.16±0.04 b
LP 2.83±.03 c 0.07±0.01 e 0.06±0.01 a 0.13±0.02 c
N198 EP 3.08±0.09 a 0.13±0.02 a 0.08±0.01 a 0.21±0.04 a
LP 2.9±.01 bc 0.07±0.01 de 0.07±0.01 a 0.14±0.03 bc
Location 2 V48 EP 3.03±0.05 a 0.13±0.02 a 0.08±0.01 a 0.21±0.03 a
LP 2.64±0.08 d 0.11±0.03 abc 0.08±0.02 a 0.19±0.04 a
N198 EP 2.96±0.07 ab 0.12±0.03 a 0.07±0.01 a 0.19±0.04 a
LP 2.87±0.06 bc 0.11±0.02 ab 0.07±0.01 a 0.19±0.02 a
    df        
Location 1 * *** * ***
Varieties 1 * ns ns ns
Planting time 1 *** ns ns *
Location x variety 1 ** ** * ***
Location x planting time 1 *** *** * ***
Variety x planting time 1 *** ns ns ns
Location x variety x planting time 1 *** ** ns ***
LSD(0.05) 0.12 0.02 0.02  0.02

 

 

The values are treatment means± standard deviations. Different letters indicate a significant difference between treatments in the same columns.

LSD, least significant difference, p≤0.05. Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP). Day After Transplantation (DAT).

 

Plant pigments

Plant pigments varied to planting time, varietal differences, and location (Table 2). From the results, it was seen that carotenoid, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total chlorophyll ranged from 2.64±0.08 – 3.08±0.09 mg g-1, 0.07±0.01 – 0.13±0.02 mg g-1, 0.06±0.01 – 0.08±0.01 mg g-1, and 0.13±0.02 – 0.21±0.03 mg g-1respectively. Significant differences were also observed in carotenoid (P<0.05), chlorophyll a (P<0.001), chlorophyll b (P<0.05) and total chlorophyll (P<0.001) in case of location interaction. On the other hand, only carotenoid showed significant differences (P<0.05) in case of varietal interaction. Significant differences were also observed  in location x variety  and location x planting time for all parameters, while carotenoid in variety x planting time and, carotenoid, chlorophyll a and total chlorophyll showed significant differences in case of location x variety x planting time interaction respectively. Higher carotenoid was recorded at early planting time for the variety Happy King in location 1 followed by golden King in both location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 2: 50 DAT Tuber Yield. Experiment 1(A,B) and Experiment 2 (C,D).

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

Fig 2 shows tuber yield 50 DAT, significant difference between transplantation times growing nutrient solutions and genotypes. Early transplanted Cultivar Golden king shows the highest tuber fresh weight 89.66±1.69 gram/plant in Farmers greenhouse Fig 2C, compare to other cultivars and transplanted times even it also shows the better result than the same variety transplanted in the same time. On the other hand, Lately transplanted cultivars Golden king and Happy king shows minimal result compare to Early transplanted range 23.33±3.85-42.16±7.01 and 40.86±0.98-56.11±5.01. Variety Golden king show higher result in tuber number per plant in early transplanted one in two locations compare to other variety and transplanted times. However, lately transplanted cultivars Happy king variety shows the lowest number of tuber/plant in farmer’s greenhouse in Fig 2D. Early transplanted golden king and Happy king tuber number range from 11±0.81-12±0.94,8.33±1.24-9.33±0.47 and lately transplanted result are very low, 6±0.81-9.33±0.74,4±0.81-6.33±1.24 respectively. For seed tuber marketable tuber size has been categorized range from >3 g to>10 g and <3g is for non marketeble tuber.Early transplanted Golden king variety show the highest result in tuber marketable fresh weight/plant 62.77±2.66 Fig 2C, On the other hand, the lowest result has been seen in cultivar Happy king 19.83±2.02 in Fig 2D. Marketable tuber number is about same in all variety and transplantation times except in farmer greenhouse in cultivar Happy king 2.66±0.47 in late transplantation.

Fig 3: 50 DAT Tuber Grading.Experiment 1(A,B) and Experiment 2 (C,D).

 

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

 

Fig 3 has shown the tuber grading result of 50 days after transplantation. The tuber has graded by 3 grade >10 g,>5 g,>3 g, and <3g. Grade has changed because of Environmental conditions, Nutrition, and Genotype. Here is the range of tuber grade Golden king early and late transplantation >10 g,2±0.81-2.66±0.47, and 00-2±0.47 respectively. >5 g, 2.33±0.47-2.66±0.94 and 1.33±0.47-2.33±0.47 sequentially. >3 g, 2.33±0.47-2.66±0.94 and 3±00-3±0.81 progressively. <3g, 4.33±0.47-5±0.81 and 3±0.94-3.66±1.24 accordingly.

For Happy King’s early and late transplantation, >10 g, 1.33±0.47-1.33±0.47 and 00-0.33±00 respectively. >5 g, 1.33±0.47-1.66±0.47 and 1.33±0.47-1.33±00 sequentially. >3 g, 2.33±0.47-3.66±0.81 and 1.66±0.47-4±0.47 respectively. <3g, 2.66±1.24-4±0.81-1.66±1.24-2±00 progressively.

Fig 4: 70 DAT Tuber Yield. Experiment 1(A,B) and Experiment 2 (C,D).

 

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

 

Fig 4 indicates the potato seed tuber yield day after transplantation significantly difference between transplantation times growing nutrient solutions and genotypes. Here is the range of tuber yield(Tuber fresh weight, Tuber number, Marketable tuber fresh weight, Marketable tuber number), Early and Late transplanted cultivar Golden king in two different location and different nutrients solution, Tuber fresh weight(TFW)range,102.71±5.69-106±12.19 and 51.66±3.68-80.86±3.42 respectively. Besides, Total Tube Number(TTN), 14±0.81-16±0.81succecivly along with Marketable Tuber Fresh Weight(MTFW),70.92±3.17-74.33±5.9 accordingly. As well as, Marketable Tuber Number (MTN)8±0.81-9.33±0.94 and 5±0.81-7.66±0.47 sequentially. Furthermore, cultivar Happy king early and late transplantation times yield range, (TFW) 60.42±6.84-72.33±5.31 and 37.66±10.27-40.44±3.37 respectively. Moreover, (TTN) 10.66±2.05-14.66±0.47 and 4.33±0.47-4.33±0.47 progressively. Together with, (MTFW) 44.46±4.97-55±2.94 and 25±1.63-30.46±1.24 accordingly. Including, (MTN) 6.66±0.81-7.33±1.24 and 3.33±0.47-4.66±0.81 sequentially. Early transplanted Golden king, happy king, and Late transplanted Golden king show the highest result in location 1 compare to loacatin 2 in Total tuber number and marketable tuber number, However, Late transplanted cultivar happy king exhibits the same result in the 2 different greenhouses in the same parameters and results are lowest Total Tuber Number (TTN) and Marketable Tuber Number (MTN), 4.33±0.47 and 3.33±0.47 (Fig B and D) respectively. Early transplanted Golden king shows the best result in Tuber fresh weight in the two greenhouses it is about location 1 and 2, 102.71±5.69 and 106±12.19 (Fig A, C) on the other hand, late transplanted Happy king shows the more than 2 times lower result which is the lowest result in all transplanting times and cultivars around 40.44±3.37 and 37.66±10.27 (Fig B,D) respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 5: 70 DAT Tuber Grading. Experiment 1(A,B) and Experiment 2 (C,D).

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

This figure has present 70 Day After Transplanting (DAT) tuber grading(>10 g,>5 g,>3 g and <3g). Environmental conditions, Nutrition, and Genotype has influence in tuber grading. Here is the range of tuber grade Golden king early and late transplantation, >10 g  weight tuber number per plant, 2±0.81-2.66±0.47 and 0.33±0.47-0.00 respectively. As well as, >5 g, 3.33±0.94-3.33±0.47 and 2.33±0.47-3±0.47 successively. Along with, >3 g, 2.66±0.47-3.33±1.24 and 2.66±0.81-3±0.81 severally. Including, <3g, 6±0.81-6.66±0.47 and 2.66±0.47-5.33±0.81 sequentially. Beside, Cultivar happy king transplanted time early in Fall and late Fall,  number of the tuber, >10 g /per plant, 1±0.81-1.66±0.94 and 0.00-0.33±0.47 particularly. Together with >5 g, 2±0.81-2.33±0.81 and1±00-1.66±0.47 severally. Furthermore, >3 g, 2.33±0.81-2.33±0.47 and 1±00-3±0.81 accordingly. Moreover, <3g, 4.33±1.69-6.66±2.05 and 2±00-3±0.47 respectively

Fig 6: 90 DAT Tuber Yield. Experiment 1(A, B) and Experiment 2 (C, D).

 

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

Fig 6 illustrates seed tuber yield in final harvesting, a significant difference between transplantation times growing nutrient solutions and genotypes. Here is the range of tuber yield(Tuber fresh weight, Tuber number, Marketable tuber fresh weight, Marketable tuber number), Early and Late transplanted cultivar Golden king in two different location and different nutrients solution, Tuber fresh weight(TFW)range, cultivar Golden king, Early and late transplanted, (TFW) 123.91±8.25-132.33±5.24 and 56.11±5.01-63.41±3.96 sequentially. Also, (TTN) 17.66±1.24-21.66±2.05 and 12.66±1.69-14.33±0.47 respectively. Including, (MTFW) 94.33±5.57-102.68±5.07 and 41.25±2.61-41.83±5.54 respectively. Along with,(MTN) 11.66±1.24-12±0.81 and 8±0.81-10±0.47 successively. Besides, cultivar Happy king early and late transplantation (TFW) 79.55±4.64-95.85±5.01 and 36±6.48-42.16±7 respectively. As well as (TTN), 11.66±1.24-17±1.69, and 5±0.81-6.26±1.63 severally. Furthermore, (MTFW) 56.35±6.61-62.11±3.41 and 29.9±2.8-33.62±4.53 particularly. And (MTN), 7.66±1.24-10.21±1.2 and 3.66±0.41-4.3±0.47 respectively.Early transplanted Cultivar Golden king shows the highest tuber fresh weight89.66±1.69 gram/plant in Farmers greenhouse Fig 2C, compare to other cultivars and transplanted times even it also shows the better result than the same variety transplanted in the same time. On the other hand, Lately transplanted cultivars Golden king and Happy king shows minimal result compare to Early transplanted range 23.33±3.85-42.16±7.01 and 40.86±0.98-56.11±5.01. Variety Golden king show higher result in tuber number per plant in early transplanted one in two locations compare to other variety and transplanted times. However, lately transplanted cultivars Happy king variety shows the lowest number of tuber/plant in farmer’s greenhouse in Fig 2D. Early transplanted golden king and Happy king tuber number range from 11±0.81-12±0.94,8.33±1.24-9.33±0.47 and lately transplanted result are very low, 6±0.81-9.33±0.74,4±0.81-6.33±1.24 respectively. For seed tuber marketable tuber size has been categorized range from >3 g to>10 g and <3g is for nonmarketable tuber.Early transplanted Golden king variety show the highest result in tuber marketable fresh weight/plant 62.77±2.66 Fig 2C, On the other hand, the lowest result has been seen in cultivar Happy king 19.83±2.02 in Fig 2D. Marketable tuber number is about the same in all variety and transplantation times except in farmer greenhouse in cultivar Happy king 2.66±0.47 in late transplantation.

 

Fig 7: 90 DAT Tuber Grading. Experiment 1(A, B) and Experiment 2 (C, D).

Early Transplanted (EP) and Late Transplanted (LP).

 

This figure illustrates the final harvested tuber grading(>10 g,>5 g,>3 g and <3g). Environmental conditions, Nutrition, and Genotype influence tuber grading. Here is the range of tuber grade Golden king early and late transplantation, number of the tuber/plant,(>10 g), 3±0.81-3.66±0.47 and 0.66±0.47-2.33±0.47 respectively. And >5 g, 3±0.81-4.66±0.47 and 2.33±0.47-3±0.81 accordingly. Including, >3 g, 4±0.81-5±0.81 and 3.33±1.24-4±0.81 severely. Also, <3g, 6±1.63-7.66±0.94 and 2.33±0.47-4±0.81 sequentially. Besides, Cultivar happy king transplanted time early in Fall and late Fall, the number of the tuber, >10 g /per plant, 1.66±0.47-3.33±1.24 and 00-3±0.81 accordingly. Moreover, >5 g, 2.66±0.94-3.33±0.47 and 1.66±0.47-2±00 respectively. Furthermore, >3 g, 4.66±124-5.66±0.47 and 1±00-1.66±0.47 particularly.Along with, <3g, 4.66±1.24-5.33±1.24 and 0.33±0.47-1.33±0.47 respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2:

Potato mini tuber seed production under low light-emitting Diodes

(LEDs) in substrate soil and green-house conditions.

 

Normally plants are grown in shade avoidance condition that behaviors can diversify in the intimacy with other plants through deviation in the light intensity (Casal, 2013). And that kind of diversity can be detected by the light red and Far-red ratio (R: Fr), that is being detected by the family of photoreceptors of plants: the phytochromes (Casal, 2000).The low light intensity ratio of R: Fr leads to downcast PSS, and the consequences in a sequence of symptoms have been shown are avoiding shade. Lower red:far-red initiated shade avoidant symptoms (SAS) ensue in the level of plant and impact in plant morphology together with stem elevation as well as amalgamate partitioning about the stem (Ballare et al., 1991; Smithand Whitelam, 1997; Cole et al., 2011). The low light ratio of R:Fr enhances apical impression and lessens basal branching (Leduc et al.,2014). Besides, at the level of a leaf, the low light intensity R: Fr enhances leaf length and petiole, mitigate the mass of leaf through leaf area, diminution of chlorophyll content of leaf and chlorophyll ratio a:b  (Smith and Whitelam, 1997; Evans and Poorter, 2001; Sasidharanet al., 2010). The ratio of lower light intensity R: Fr also has an impact on developmentation by decreasing the flowering time of Arabidopsis thaliana, as a result, early seed production  (Smith and Whitelam, 1997; Dornet al., 2000). Howsoever, the impacts of R:Fr on fruit initiation in fruit cultivating crops like tomatoes which have little study on it. Moreover, there are very few studies are conducted on the impacts of R: Fr is being used dose-reaction curves to analyze the impacts of R: Fr on the fruit production crop morphology as well as flowering.

 

Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is being cultured globally propagates asexually through tubers. But in a long time reproduction asexually can cause erosion of plant growth potentiality and it also harms elevation as well as erosion tubers and deformity. Consequently, virus-free plant materials have been used for cultivating seed potatoes in greenhouse conditions whereas cultivating tuber seeds in the traditional greenhouse much more grievous because of environmental obligation, as a result, less cropping season and mitigation of breeding cornerstone.After developing of plant-factory, where pattern environment for plant growth in simulated environment condition and continue their phenotypic durability and enhance the yield. (Kyoko and Hiroshi2016; Folta 2019). In this way of increasing potato tuber yields has been cultivated in plant-factory conditions.Emitting light wavelength from the Sun is ranged from 280-1400 nm and divided into three groups like ultraviolet(100 to 380), visible (380 to 780 nm) as well as infrared is ranged from 700 to 3000 nm. Also, the Visible spectrum is separated into red ranged from 630 to 770 nm, blue 430 to 500 nm, green 500 to 570, violet 380 to 430 nm, yellow 570 to 590, as well as orange wavelength, ranging from 590 to 770 nm. In contrast with the plant, can synthesize at the wavelength from 400 to 700 nm, is known as (PAR) photosyntheticallyactive- radiation. The favorable effect of light has a motley and significant effect on the long-term survival of food crop species. Being a necessary genesis of food, for plant growth regulation light is very important and plays a key role to control growth behavior. (Fukuda et al.,2008). Accord wavelength or quality light can switch in plant morphology upliftment which is found out by phytochromes (Kami et al. 2010). Phytochromescan be developed diverse plant responses, for example, seed germination, plant architecture, flowering, tuberization, avoid of shading, dormancy (Haliapas et al. 2008; Fan et al. 2013). Light is a necessary element for the growth of plantslike water as well as oxygen. Plants are completely dependenton light to make their food, by that they can conduct their life cycle (Fukuda et al. 2008). Light, which is entangled in systemizing the synthesis of diverse important phytochemicals(Shohael et al. 2006). Normally, any kind of variation in the light quality, it may affect physiological, anatomical, and morphologicalparameters of leaf in the plants (Haliapas et al. 2008).

 

 

In a simulated environment system, light is a key element of plant factories. Which systems are being used to be provided the light intensity, spectrum as well as photoperiod that is needed for plant growth. For example, red light plays an important role in potato plant morphology, like plant elevation as well as leaf area. (Miyashitaet al., 1997; Lee et al., 2011),where blue light enhances the surface area of the cell and the number of mitochondria and chloroplasts per cell (Gukasyan et al., 1994). Moreover, blue and red light, the vital energy source that helps to carbon-dioxide assimilation as well as carbohydrate biosynthesis that has a key influence on plant growth (Lin et al., 2013). Furthermore, the synchronous dispensation of red and blue light is an unavoidable element for the optimum growth of potato plants (Jao and Fang 2004). At the stage of nursery for healthy plantlets and good yield that needs red and blue light (Kim and Lee 2004). The improvement of the radish’s storage root needs blue and red light (Zha and Liu 2018). Nevertheless, very few studies have been accomplished on the outcome of blue and red light on the potato plant’s complete growth cycle. In the natural condition, usually, plants grow under Sunlights broad-spectrum that control the plant’s photo-morphogenesis (Briggs 1993). The component of spectral are interdependent (Chen et al., 2016), that is helped the plant to acclimatize in the natural environmental condition. Lin et al., (2013) indicated that the transmission capacity of the canopy is confineded to blue and red light, where other spectra beneath white light are favorable for photosynthesis of the leaves at the bottom position of the plant. Consequently, provisioning white-light is beneficial for the crop production cycle in the plant factories parallel the spectrum consisting only blue and red light.

 

Materials and Methods

 

Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Settings

 

All LED devices used in this study were designed at the Department of Bio-health Convergence, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea. The four lights used for this experiment, Red, Blue, White, and Far-red. (red light, blue, white light, and far-red light intensity 100 μmol m−2 s−1; red light peak wavelength: 660 nm, blue light wavelength: 450 nm, far-red light wavelength 730 nm. The combination of the LED lighting and Experiment treatments was L1=Red: Blue: Far-red (R:B:Fr), L2=Red: Blue: White (R:B:W), L3=Blue: Far-red (B:Fr), L4=Blue: White (B:W), L5=Red: Far-red (R: Fr), L6=Red: White (R: W) and Natural light (Control). Light intensity was measured using a spectroradiometer (OPT-2000; ABDPE Co., Beijing, China), and is shown in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Light spectrum combination and ratio

 

Treatment No. Spectrum combinations Ratio (%) Intensity

(µmol m-2s-1)

Code Name
1 R:B:FR 70:20:10 100 L1
2 R:B:W 70:20:10 100 L2
3 B:FR 70:30 100 L3
4 B:W 70:30 100 L4
5 R:FR 70:30 100 L5
6 R:W 70:30 100 L6
7 Natural Light     L7

 

 

 

Plant Materials and Growth

 

Solanum tuberosum cv. Golden king(V 48) and Chungang(V 41) were selected for the experiments and were obtained from Kangwon National University. Virus-free tissue culture plant materials have been used for this experiment. The photoperiod was 16/8 h (light/dark) at the vegetative growth and 12/12 at the tuber bulking period. Temperature condition was controlled in the glasshouse, day 25◦C and at night temperature was 15◦C.The distance between LED panels and the plant canopy was 15 cm. The plant has grown in substrate soil and vermicompost has been used for growing nutrients.

 

Measurements of Plant Growth, Morphology, and Yield

 

Growth characteristics, such as shoot dry weight (leaves and stems per plant), leaf number, were assessed with three replications per treatment and measured40 Day After Transplantation (DAT). Plant samples were oven-dried at 80 °C until a constant weight was reached.Tuber yield was measured according to the yield of 6 plants/treatment. Tuber harvest at 90 days after transplantation(DAT) and recorder tuber yield.

 

Photosynthetic Pigment Measurement

For the determination of photosynthetic pigments, the freeze-dried (50 mg) leaves were extracted (10 mL of 80% acetone) and placed at room temperature for 15 min. The collected extract was transferred into a tube and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min. The absorbance was taken at 647, 663 and 470 nm, respectively using a spectrophotometer (UV-1800 240 V, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, Total chlorophyll and Carotenoid were determined according to the formula (Lichtenthaler et al., 1987) and expressed as mg g−1 DW:

 

Chl a = 12.25 × A663 − 2.79 × A647

Chl b = 21.50 × A647 − 5.10 × A663

TCh = 7.15 × A663 + 18.71 × A647

Car = 1000 × A470 − 1.82 × Chl a − 85.02 × Chl b

 

Sucrose and total Carbohydrate Content Measurements

Each sample Leaves have been collected from similar positions within each treatment 50 days after transplantation The samples were homogenized in 5 mL of ethanol (95%). The insoluble fraction of the extracts were washed with 5 mL of ethanol (70%) followed by centrifuging at 3500 rpm for 10 min and the supernatant was kept in a refrigerator (4 ◦C) for the determination of TSC and Sucrose content. Plants 2020, 9, 1511 6 of 27 TSC content was determined according to (Khoyerdi et al. 2016). Briefly, 0.1 mL of the aliquot was mixed with 1 mL anthrone (200 mg anthrone mixed with 100 mL of 72% sulfuric acid). The mixture was heated at 100 ◦C for 10 min and then cooled. Total soluble carbohydrate was estimated by using a standard curve, the detection wavelength was 625 nm and the results were expressed as µg·g −1 dry weight. In the case of sucrose content, 0.2 mL of the supernatant was mixed with 0.1 mL of KOH (30%) and heated at 100 ◦C for 10 min. After cooling at room temperature 3 mL of anthrone (150 mg anthrone mixed with 100 mL 70% sulfuric acid) was added. Ten minutes later, the samples were cooled, and absorbance was read at 620 nm. Sucrose concentration was calculated using the standard curve and the results were expressed as µg·g −1 dry weight( Van Handel et al., 1968)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Result and Discussion

Light

 

Plant H. Plant FW. Plant DW. Node N. Leaf N. Leaf L. Leaf W.
V 48  V 41 V 48  V 41 V 48  V 41 V 48  V 41 V 48  V 41 V 48  V 41 V 48  V 41
L 1 17.33±3.39 bc 17.01±3.29 c 2.16±0.3 d 3.35±0.26 d 0.21±0.04 d 0.24±0.04 bc 15.33±2.86 a 13.66±1.41 b 9.61±1.69 ab 9±0.84 ab 5.5±0.4 a 3±0.4 b 2.5±0.41 ab 1.5±0.24 a
L 2 13±0.81 c 15±0.8 c 7.18±1.02 abc 4.54±0.33 c 0.4±0.03 c 0.25±0.02 bc 12±0.81 ab 14.22±2.62ab 7.31±1.22 b 9.66±1.24 a 3.03±0.2 b 3.1±0.73 b 1.9±0.21 ab 1.6±0.29 a
L 3 21.6±1.22 b 26±1.63 ab 1.714±0.21 d 0.42±0.06 e 0.17±0.08 d 0.08±0.02 d 15.67±1.24 a 14.34±2.94 ab 9±0.87 ab 9±0.8 ab 5.4±0.53 a 4.43±0.49 a 2.5±0.12 ab 1.86±0.17 a
L 4 14±0.82 c 15±1.62 c 6.25±0.92 bc 5.45±0.7 b 0.15±0.02 d 0.19±0.03 c 15.31±1.69 a 14.24±2.49 ab 7.32±1.63 ab 8±0.88 ab 2.73±0.2 b 1.96±0.12 c 1.55±0.11 b 1.43±0.25 a
L 5 30.3±1.11 a 27±1.41 a 9.98±1.74 a 6.91±0.27 a 1.23±0.06 a 0.35±0.02 a 16.33±1.2 a 14.16±1.22 ab 10.63±1.14 a 9±0.83 ab 5.9±0.29 a 4.23±0.55 a 2.5±0.4 ab 1.73±0.55 a
L 6 16.31±2.05 bc 19±2.94 bc 4.44±0.22 cd 3.55±0.3 d 0.12±0.02 d 0.27±0.02 b 11.36±0.8 ab 14.74±0.8 ab 6±0.82 b 7.33±1.22 b 2.66±0.47 b 1.13±0.12 c 1.4±0.29 b 0.6±0.16 b
L 7 15.32±2.62 bc 14±1.22 c 8.04±1.39 ab 4.76±0.19 bc 0.64±0.07 b 0.41±0.03 a 8±0.84 b 16.16±1.24 a 7±0.8 ab 7±0.81 b 3.5±1.08 b 1.86±0.26 c 2.9±0.52 a 1.26±0.2 a
LSD 7.39 7.85 3.53 0.75 0.19 0.07 5.61 4.44 3.89 2.19 1.64 0.86 1.25 0.62

Table 2:Effect of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) on the growth parameters of potato plants in greenhouse conditions

 

Note: Different letters in the column indicate significant differences (P<0.05).

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 indicated data of growth parameter from 6 LEDs lights treated potato plants like plant height, plant fresh weight,dry weight, Node number, leaf number, leaf length, and width, far-red plays an important role in plant elongation comparatively other combined light treatments. L5(R:FR) shows the height result in stem length in two varieties Golden king(V 48) and Chungang (V 41) 30.3±1.11 and 27±1.41 besides, L3(B:FR) also represent the same trends, 21.6±1.22 and 26±1.63 respectively. However, L4(B:W) and L2(R:B:W) show the lowest result same as in natural light conditions, varieties of V 48 and V 41, 14±0.82 and 15±1.62; 13±0.81 and 15±0.8 respectively and natural light 15.32±2.62 and 14±1.22 as well. Moreover, under light L5 (R:FR) show the best plant fresh weight in two varieties V 48 and V 41 9.98±1.74 and 6.91±0.27 individually, whereas the lowest have recorded in L3 (B:FR) around 1.714±0.21 and 0.42±0.06. Furthermore, in L2(R:B:W) and L4(B:W) these light are combined with blue light also represent a significant result compare to other lights, 7.18±1.02 and 4.54±0.33; 6.25±0.92 and 5.45±0.7 consequently. In the parameter of plant dry weight L3 variety of V 41 shows the minimal result on the other hand in L5 variety V 48 illustrates the heights result in the figures are 0.08±0.02 and 1.23±0.06 separately.L1 and L 2 represent the static results compare to other results but 2 times lower than natural light. Varieties V 48 and V 41, 0.21±0.04 and 0.24±0.04; 0.4±0.03 and 0.25±0.02 and 0.64±0.07 as well as 0.41±0.03 comparatively. No significant differences have been seen in node and leaf number except L6 (R:W) in a specific variety Golden king show the lowest node and leaf number about 11.36±0.8 and 6±0.82. However, the best result has recorded in L5 in the same variety Golden King as well, around 16.33±1.2 and 10.63±1.14 individual number of node and leaf. In L5 and L3 highest leaf length has been recorded in varieties V 48 and V 41 5.9±0.29 and 4.43±0.49 whereas the lowest has been seen in the L6, 2.66±0.47 and 1.13±0.12. In L1, L3 and L5 show the common trend of leaf elongation they show increasing trait compare to other lights. Though leaf width is not significant differences, L1, L3 and L5 represent the same and highest result about 2.5±0.12in variety V 48 compare to other variety and light whereas in L3 variety V 41 shows the best result 1.86±0.17. However, L6 shows the minimal result in two different varieties, V 48 and V 41, 1.4±0.29 and 0.6±0.16 as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Effect of LEDs light treatments on photosynthetic pigments, total chlorophyll, and carotenoids

Light Carotenoid mg/g Chlorophyll a mg/g Chlorophyll b mg/g Total Chlorophyll mg/g
V  48 V 41 V  48 V 41 V  48 V 41 V  48 V 41
L 1 2.01±0.07b 1.12±0.05 b 1.12±0.05b 0.61±0.05 e 0.94±0.05a 0.44±0.03 d 2.07±0.11b 1.06±0.08 e
L 2 1.19±0.05b 0.74±0.07 cd 0.76±0.06d 0.82±0.05 bc 0.49±0.06c 0.55±0.04 b 1.25±0.12de 1.37±0.02 bc
L 3 1.21±0.05d 0.73±0.04 cd 0.75±0.05d 0.99±0.07 a 0.55±0.07c 0.76±0.03 a 1.3±0.12d 1.76±0.11 a
L 4 1.12±0.06d 0.69±0.06 cd 0.66±0.02d 0.7±0.04 de 0.45±0.04c 0.51±0.06 c 1.12±0.05e 1.22±0.02 cd
L 5 1.99±0.07d 1.04±0.1 b 1.06±0.06b 0.77±0.03 bcd 1.03±0.05 0.51±0.05 c 2.07±0.02b 1.29±0.07 c
L 6 1.51±0.07c 0.86±0.06 c 0.87±0.04c 0.87±0.03 b 0.69±0.02b 0.57±0.03 b 1.56±0.02c 1.44±0.07 b
L 7 2.33±0.07a 1.27±0.03 a 1.25±0.08a 0.75±0.04 cd 1.03±0.08a 0.53±0.02 bc 2.28±0.001a 1.29±0.06 c
LSD 0.13 0.14 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.03 0.13 0.09

 

Note: Different letters in the column indicate significant differences (P<0.05

 

Table 2 is representing the photosynthetic pigments, Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, and Caretonoids data from 6 LEDs treatments of potato. L1 (R:B:FR) illustrates significantly the highest results of carotenoid content in two different varieties Golden king(V 48) and Chungang (V 41) 2.01±0.07 mg/g  and 1.12±0.05 mg/g, besides L5 (R:FR) also shows a significant result of 1.99±0.07 mg/g and 1.04±0.1 mg/g, whereas, L4 shows the lowest amount of carotenoids content 1.12±0.06 mg/g and 0.69±0.06 mg/g, besides L2, L3 also show the same decreasing trends like L4, 1.19±0.05 mg/g and 0.74±0.07 mg/g; 1.21±0.05 mg/g and 0.73±0.04 mg/g respectively. It is observed that red+far-red light has a significant role in increasing carotenoid content compare to blue and white light and variety V 48 show 2 folded carotenoid result in maximum light treatments. In chlorophyll-a also has the same trends as carotenoids content, there are also L1 show the highest amount of chlorophyll a, in variety V 48 1.12±0.05 mg/g, on the other hand, V 41 variety represents the lowest result 0.61±0.05 and the highest amount of Chl a illustrates in L3 0.99±0.07 mg/g. Same trends as like as carotenoid red+far-red light help to increase Chl a compare to blue+white light as well. In light L5 represent the height Chl b content 1.03±0.05 besides, L1 also shows significant amounts of Chl b content 0.94±0.05 whereas L4 illustrates the lowest amount of Chl b content  0.45±0.04 in the variety of V 48. Moreover, in the variety of V 41, Chl b content in maximum light treatment is not significant, where under light L3 shows the highest amount 0.76±0.03 and under light L1 represents the lowest amount of 0.44±0.03 mg/g Chl b content. The highest total Chl content has been recorded in light L1 and L5 2.07±0.11 and 2.07±0.02 and the lowest content has been recorded in light L4,1.12±0.05 in the variety of Golden king. However, in Chungan variety the height total Chl content is under light treatment L3 1.76±0.11 but, the lowest is under L1 1.06±0.08.

 

Fig 1: Effect of LEDs light treatment on the Total carbohydrate content and sucrose content of potato plants in greenhouse condition

Different letters in each bar graph indicate significant differences (P<0.05)

 

Fig 1 has been demonstrated soluble carbohydrate and sucrose content plant accumulates in different light condition, As mention that under L1, the variety Golden king shows the highest total soluble carbohydrate and sucrose content 7.71±0.06 and 0.04 mg/g, whereas.The two different varieties show the minimal amount of TSC content in the light L4 1.9±0.03 and 2.01±0.04 but under L5 variety V41 shows a significantly highest result compare to other lights 3.75±0.04 in the same variety as well as in the same light the two varieties show significant results where V 41 show the best amount of sucrose content. The same result is also recorded in light L4, with less amount of sucrose content in the two varieties.

 

 

Fig 2: Effects of LEDs on the yield of potato tubers

Different letters in each bar graph indicate significant differences (P<0.05)

 

As mention in fig 2, the best tuber number is recorded in the variety of V 41, under light L2 (R:B:W) , whereas the lowest has been recorded under L4 in the variety of V 48. However, in the light L6, there were no tuber has been found in any varieties. In every treatment, the variety of V 41 shows more tuberization trends compare to the variety of V 48. Under light L4 (B:W) V48 also slso shows a significant tuberization compare to other treatment, it shows the second-best tuberization performance, but under L1 it has shown the highest tuber fresh weight 4.41±0.73, besides, biggest tuber fresh weight is around 2.76±0.71, on the other hand, the lowest tuber fresh weight under light L4, 0.22±0.05, linked with very less biggest tuber fresh weight has been recorded under the same light. It is observed that the Golden king variety has a trend to induce bigger tuber fresh weight under maximum treatments compare to Chungang. It has indicated in fig 2 red light plays an important role in more tuberization combination to other light compare to other treatments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion:

LEDs are a promising electric light source for space-based plant growth chambers and bioregenerative advanced life support owing to their small mass and volume, durability, safety, and longevity (Bula. 1992). The high photon levels and wavelength specificity of blue and red LEDs convey an added advantage (Sager and Wheeler 1992). Wilken et al. (2014) reported that the application of LEDs resulted in more vigorous growth in banana relative to the application of fluorescent light. Hahn et al. (2000) found that shoot lengths of Rehmannia glutinosa under either blue or red LEDs were greater than those under mixed LEDs or fluorescent lamps. Under either blue or red LEDs, plantlets overgrew and appeared fragile, but plantlets under mixed LEDs or fluorescent lamps were healthy, with normal shoot lengths. The optimal ratio of blue to red LED light seems to be specific to the plant species. For example, the best proportion of blue and red LED light for strawberry and Tripterospermum japonicum was 70R/30B (Moon et al. 2006; Nhut et al. 2003), for upland cotton the optimal light treatment was 50R/50B (Li et al. 2010), and for banana and Phalaenopsis 80R/20B proved superior (Nhut et al. 2007; Wongnok et al. 2008). The results of the present study showed that the height of potato plantlets in vitro was the greatest when cultured under 100R for three weeks. This result agreed with the findings of Puspa et al. (2008), who observed that shoot elongation and internode length in grape vines were the greatest under red LED light. Red and blue LED combinations resulted in longer shoots, when compared with white LEDs, which could be attributed to the need for a specific wavelength. Additionally, LEDs trigger photomorphogenic pigments, which are responsible for photoreception and regeneration (Karata et al. 2016). It has been reported that root growth of Doritaenopsis is hindered in plants grown under red LEDs, and that root growth is optimized in plants grown under blue light (Kong et al. 2008). In this study, the root growth of Favorita potato plantlets was inhibited under both 100R and 100B light types, whereas root growth rate was the highest under the 80R/20B light treatment.

Nanya et al. (2012) showed that stem elongation in tomato seedlings was dependent on the quantity of blue light. Luan et al. (2015) reported that the shoots of Paphiopedilum grown under 100% blue LEDs showed the most elongation. Kim et al. (2004) proposed that stem elongation may be promoted or inhibited by different synergistic interactions between blue/ red light receptors and phytochromes according to species. Plant formation ability under LED conditions was much higher than that under traditional lighting sources for plant cell, tissue, and organ culture using fresh and dry weight. Growth rate is a measure of variation in height, root length, and fresh weight in different periods under different treatments. A higher growth rate indicates greater elongation of height and root length and a greater increase in fresh weight.

Light quality plays an important role in photosynthesis, influencing the way in which light is absorbed by chlorophyll (Shao et al. 2013; Tripathy and Brown 1995). The results of the present study showed that the chlorophyll content in potato plantlets decreased under red LEDs and increased under red and blue LED combinations relative to other light types. This was in agreement with Kong et al. (2008), who reported that the amount of chlorophyll and carotenoids in Doritaenopsis plants was greater when grown under red and blue LED combinations. It has been reported that blue light is important in chlorophyll biosynthesis, maturation of chloroplasts, and photosynthesis (Schuerger et al. 1997). Maximum photosynthetic efficiency is achieved when grown under red and blue LED combinations, and red and blue LED wavelength combinations closely coincide with the absorption peaks of chlorophyll. In the present study, all combinations of R and B LED resulted in the greatest total chlorophyll and chlorophyll B content, whereas Chlorophyll A content was the greatest in LED combinations of R with at least 30% B. Chl-B did not vary among the combinations of R and B, and was significantly lower under 100B than under the R and B combinations. Blue light could improve chlorophyll content only if it was combined with red light.

There are few reports on how light of different wavelengths affects tuberization. Seabrook (2005) concluded that blue light promoted more tuberization than did red light. Additionally, blue light is negatively correlated with potato biomass, but promotes earlier microtuber formation and an increase in the number of tubers per plant (Chang et al., 2009). In the present study, the weight of single tubers was the lowest under 100R. This may be because red light is important for stem elongation, and the photosynthetic products under red light are mainly accumulated in the above-ground parts of potato.

The results of the present study showed that the TSC content was the greatest in potato plantlets cultivated under 50R/ 50B or 70R/30B LED conditions than under other light types (Fig. 2). Kowallik (1982) revealed that light quality regulates carbohydrate metabolism of higher plants, and that carbohydrate content is high under red light. However, combined blue and red LED treatments were found to be more effective in grape (Heo et al. 2006) and Doritaenopsis (Kong et al. 2008). The ratio of red to blue LEDs can affect TSC content, and this can be attributed to synergistic interactions between phytochromes and blue- or red-light receptors (Kim et al. 2004).

Different light treatments may affect the growth and development of plant cells, tissues, and organs by triggering physiological reactions. Eleven characteristics of potato plantlets grown under LED treatments were analyzed in this study to evaluate six LED treatments. Our results demonstrate that the spectral quality of light influences morphogenesis, diverse physiological traits, and tuberization responses in potato plants. Clarifying the optimal blue to red LED ratio (70R/30B) for potato growth was the most important new finding of this study. Taken together, the results of our study indicate that LEDs are necessary for normal development in potato and that combinations of R and B are superior to R or B alone. High-quality potatoes can be produced using 70R/30B LED light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter: 3

Light Emitting Diodes(LEDs) pre-treatment on potato seed tuber production in an aeroponic system

 

Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is being cultured globally propagates asexually through tubers. But in a long time reproduction asexually can cause erosion of plant growth potentiality and it also harms elevation as well as decay tubers and deformity. Consequently, virus-free plant materials have been used for cultivating seed potatoes in greenhouse conditions whereas cultivating tuber seeds in the traditional greenhouse much more grievous because of environmental obligation, as a result, less cropping season and mitigation of breeding cornerstone. After developing of plant-factory, where pattern environment for plant growth in simulated environment condition and continue their phenotypic durability and enhance the yield. (Kyoko and Hiroshi2016; Folta 2019). In this way of increasing potato tuber yields have been cultivated in plant-factory conditions.Emitting light wavelength from the Sun is ranged from 280-1400 nm and is divided into three groups like ultraviolet(100 to 380), visible (380 to 780 nm) as well as infrared is ranged from 700 to 3000 nm. Also, the Visible spectrum is separated into red ranged from 630 to 770 nm, blue 430 to 500 nm, green 500 to 570, violet 380 to 430 nm, yellow 570 to 590, as well as orange wavelength, ranging from 590 to 770 nm. In contrast with the plant, can synthesize at the wavelength from 400 to 700 nm, is known as (PAR) photosyntheticallyactive- radiation. The favorable effect of light has a motley and significant effect on the long-term survival of food crop species. Being a necessary genesis of food, for plant growth regulation light is very important and plays a key role to control growth behavior. (Fukuda et al.,2008). Accord wavelength or quality light can switch in plant morphology upliftment which is found out by phytochromes (Kami et al. 2010). Phytochromescan be developed with diverse plant responses, for example, seed germination, plant architecture, flowering, tuberization, avoidance of shading, dormancy (Haliapas et al. 2008; Fan et al. 2013). Light is a necessary element for the growth of plantslike water as well as oxygen. Plants are completely dependenton light to make their food, by that they can conduct their life cycle (Fukuda et al. 2008). Light, which is entangled in systemizing the synthesis of diverse important phytochemicals(Shohael et al. 2006). Normally, any kind of variation in the light quality, it may affect physiological, anatomical, and morphologicalparameters of leaf in the plants (Haliapas et al. 2008).

 

Paranormal weather conditions, Shortage of water and cropping land increasingly menace of production crop all over the world whilst the population is increasing rapidly 2050 it will be 9.8 billion all over the world. (United Nations et al., 2017); around 66% will townish areas (United Nations et al., 2014). For maintaining ecological equality and feed the whole the world as well as flourish economical growth, the agricultural cultivation system has been introduced in a renewed form, to produce feasible food crop: with the help of “ (PFAL) plant factories through artificial-lighting” (Kozai et al., 2016).

PFAL has been formed thermally insulated, close to an airtight, warehouse as well as plant production amenities along with air conditioning systems and air circulation system like fans, nutrient solution and CO2 has been supplied besides environmental-control units (Falster and Westoby, 2003; Kozai, 2012, 2013). These types of the soilless production system for sustainable food produce execute to be vindicated at any place of city with worthy conditions.

Quadrating the necessity of establishment commercial-size PFAL for producing food, inconsiderable-PFAL systems have been established for urban residents with small opportunities for growing food crops in outdoor conditions and indoor farming as well as present an expedient tool for office, restaurant,hospital and educational institution setting to supply urban people with spick and span production, fascinating activities as well. Consequently, tiny and household PFAL becoming more popular in the urban area to improve citizen’s lifestyles in different countries (Kozai et al., 2016).

 

Soilless culture system like aeroponics and hydroponics system is adopted increasingly as leading technological elements in the updated greenhouse instead of community gardens as well as traditional soil farms in outdoor conditions in Singapore (He, 2015). Nowadays, entire leafy-vegetables in Singapore are being grown all the year-round through soilless cultures in greenhouse conditions along with a sufficient supply of water, plant growing nutrient solution as well, that is not being affected by drought. Severally, the intensity of light and water critically influences plant growth. Singapore has been faced increasingly disputable hazy and cloudy weather conditions last 2 decades (Nobre et al., 2016), turn out low light intensity experiencing a reduction of crop production (Jones, 2006). In the earlier time stated that at the time lettuce is grown in Singapore (He et al., 2011) as well as Brassica alboglabra plants (He et al., 2019b) were cultivated underneath low light intensity during the period of haze, in greenhouse conditions, facing low stomatal conductance, and humble photosynthetic rate, as well as productivity, were surveyed. In surrounding the problem like inadequate sunlight, in another consideration has been conducted along lettuce plants, whereas (LEDs) light-emitting diode was provided under the lower intensity of sunlight in greenhouse conditions (Choong et al., 2018; He et al.,2019a).

 

In a simulated environment system, light is a key element of plant factories. Which systems are being used to be provided the light intensity, spectrum as well as photoperiod that is needed for plant growth. For example, red light plays an important role in potato plant morphology, like plant elevation as well as leaf area. (Miyashitaet al., 1997; Lee et al., 2011),where blue light enhances the surface area of the cell and the number of mitochondria and chloroplasts per cell (Gukasyan et al., 1994). Moreover, blue and red light, the vital energy source that helps to carbon-dioxide assimilation as well as carbohydrate biosynthesis that has a key influence on plant growth (Lin et al., 2013). Furthermore, the synchronous dispensation of red and blue light is an unavoidable element for the optimum growth of potato plants (Jao and Fang 2004). At the stage of nursery for healthy plantlets and good yield that needs red and blue light (Kim and Lee 2004). The improvement of the radish’s storage root needs blue and red light (Zha and Liu 2018). Nevertheless, very few studies have been accomplished on the outcome of blue and red light on the potato plant’s complete growth cycle. In the natural condition, usually, plants grow under Sunlights broad-spectrum that control the plant’s photo-morphogenesis (Briggs 1993). The component of spectral are interdependent (Chen et al., 2016), that is helped the plant to acclimatize in the natural environmental condition. Lin et al., (2013) indicated that the transmission capacity of the canopy is confined to blue and red light, where other spectra beneath white light are favorable for photosynthesis of the leaves at the bottom position of the plant. Consequently, provisioning white-light is beneficial for the crop production cycle in the plant factories parallel the spectrum consisting of only blue and red light. Historically it is considered that green light is ineffective for the growth of the plant, especially photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis (Klein, 2010). But green light is better than red or blue light for implanting plant canopy as a result below leaves canopy is being used for photosynthesis of avoidance the photoaging impacts from direct sunlight. (Nishio, 2000; Folta, 2004; Bouly et al., 2007; Johkan et al.,2012). Besides, for enhancing microtubes fresh weight greenlight has a positive effect on it (Aliand Esmail, 2011), moreover, combinedly with blue and red spectrum influences to potato plant growth  (Ma et al., 2015).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Materials and Methods

 

Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Settings

 

All LED devices used in this study were designed at the Department of Bio-health Convergence, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea. The four lights used for this experiment, Red, Blue, White, and Far-red. (red light, blue, white light, and far-red light intensity 100 μmol m−2 s−1; red light peak wavelength: 660 nm, blue light wavelength: 450 nm, far-red light wavelength 730 nm. The combination of the LED lighting and Experiment treatments was L1=Red: Blue: Far-red (R:B:Fr), L2=Red: Blue: White (R:B:W), L3=Blue: Far-red (B:Fr), L4=Blue: White (B:W), L5=Red: Far-red (R: Fr), L6=Red: White (R: W) and Natural light (Control). Light intensity was measured using a spectroradiometer (OPT-2000; ABDPE Co., Beijing, China), and is shown in Table 1.

 

 

Table 1:Light spectrum ratios for potato production in the aeroponic system

Treatment No. Spectrum combinations Ratio (%) Intensity

(µmol m-2s-1)

Code Name

 

1 Natural Light     L1
2 R:B 80:20 300 L2
3 R:B:G 70:20:10 300 L3
4 R:B:FR 70:20:10 300 L4
5 R:B:G:FR 60:20:10:10 300 L5
6 R:B:G:FR:UV 50:20:10:10:10 300 L6
7 R:B:FR:UV 60:20:10:10 300 L7
8 R:B:W:FR: 50:20:20:10 300 L8
9 R:B:W:FR:UV 40:20:20:10:10 300 L9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plant Materials and Growth

 

Solanum tuberosum cv. Golden king(V 48) was selected for the experiments and was obtained from Kangwon National University. Virus-free tissue culture plant materials have been used for this experiment. The photoperiod was 16/8 h (light/dark) at the vegetative growth and 12/12 at the tuber bulking period. Temperature condition was semi- controlled in the greenhouse, day 16-25◦C and at night temperature was 10-15◦C. The distance between LED panels and the plant canopy was 15 cm. The plant has grown in aeroponic system and nutrient solutions has been used for growing plants and tuberization periods are shown in table 2.

 

Table 2: Plant growth nutrient solutions in the vegetative growth stage and tuberization stage

 

Chemical Name Vegetative Growth Period

(Transplantation to 40 thDay)

Tuber Bulking Period

(41th days to Harvesting day)

A Tank(50L) B Tank(50L) A Tank(50L) B Tank(50L)
Ca(‎NO3) 1.5    kg 7.66 kg
KNO3 3.79 kg 3.79 kg 3.54 kg 3.54 kg
(NH4)2HPO4 1.6 kg 1.52 kg
MgSO4 4.3 kg 3.68 kg
K2SO4 1.3 kg
Fe 460 g 460 g 30.8 g
MnSO4 30.8g
BH3O3 57.2 g 57.2 g
ZnSO4 3.6 g 3.6 g
CuSO4 1.3 g   1.3 g
(NH4)2O∙mMoO3∙H2O   0.4 g   0.4 g

 

Measurements of Plant Growth, Morphology, and Yield

 

Growth characteristics, such as shoot dry weight (leaves and stems per plant), leaf number, were assessed with three replications per treatment and measured50 Day After Transplantation (DAT). Plant samples were oven-dried at 80 °C until a constant weight was reached.Tuber yield was measured according to the yield of 6 plants/treatment. Tuber harvest at 90 days after transplantation(DAT) and recorder tuber yield.

 

Photosynthetic Pigment Measurement

For the determination of photosynthetic pigments, the freeze-dried (50 mg) leaves were extracted (10 mL of 80% acetone) and placed at room temperature for 15 min. The collected extract was transferred into a tube and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min. The absorbance was taken at 647, 663 and 470 nm, respectively using a spectrophotometer (UV-1800 240 V, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, Total chlorophyll and Carotenoid were determined according to the formula (Lichtenthaler et al., 1987) and expressed as mg g−1 DW:

 

Chl a = 12.25 × A663 − 2.79 × A647

Chl b = 21.50 × A647 − 5.10 × A663

TCh = 7.15 × A663 + 18.71 × A647

Car = 1000 × A470 − 1.82 × Chl a − 85.02 × Chl b

 

Sucrose and total Carbohydrate Content Measurements

Each sample Leaves have been collected from similar positions within each treatment 50 days after transplantation The samples were homogenized in 5 mL of ethanol (95%). The insoluble fraction of the extracts were washed with 5 mL of ethanol (70%) followed by centrifuging at 3500 rpm for 10 min and the supernatant was kept in a refrigerator (4 ◦C) for the determination of TSC and Sucrose content. Plants 2020, 9, 1511 6 of 27 TSC content was determined according to (Khoyerdi et al. 2016). Briefly, 0.1 mL of the aliquot was mixed with 1 mL anthrone (200 mg anthrone mixed with 100 mL of 72% sulfuric acid). The mixture was heated at 100 ◦C for 10 min and then cooled. Total soluble carbohydrate was estimated by using a standard curve, the detection wavelength was 625 nm and the results were expressed as µg·g −1 dry weight. In the case of sucrose content, 0.2 mL of the supernatant was mixed with 0.1 mL of KOH (30%) and heated at 100 ◦C for 10 min. After cooling at room temperature 3 mL of anthrone (150 mg anthrone mixed with 100 mL 70% sulfuric acid) was added. Ten minutes later, the samples were cooled, and absorbance was read at 620 nm. Sucrose concentration was calculated using the standard curve and the results were expressed as µg·g −1 dry weight( Van Handel et al., 1968)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results:

Table 1: Plant Morphological Data of Potato in Aeroponic System Under Different Lights.

Parameter L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7  

L 8

 

   L9 LSD
Plant H.(cm) 32±3.26 d 37.66±4.18 cd 46.33±3.09 b 56.67±7.4 a 32±4.32 d 40.37±2.49 bc 46.33±3.68 b 44±2.94 bc 42±2.44 bc 8.57
Stem Dia.(mm) 4.5±0.43 cd 6.75±0.95 a 7.02±0.43 a 5.33±0.24 bc 5.34±0.38 bc 4±0.21 d 5.06±0.73 c 6.61±0.35 a 6.21±0.36 ab 0.98
PFW(g) 13.1±3.08 d 38.93±4.5 bc 51.33±11.08 b 67±14.44 a 16.46±4.92 d 12.86±1.92 d 37.33±4.98 c 46.66±3.39 bc 45.33±6.54 bc 13.23
PDW(g) 1.36±0.37 cde 2.8±0.43 b 3.6±1.08 ab 4.4±1.55 a 0.96±0.33 de 0.56±0.04 e 2.26±0.44 bcd 3.1±0.37 ab 2.7±0.32 bc 1.35
BN 4±0.81 b 3±0.82 bcd 4.33±0.47 b 7.33±0.94 a 2.33±0.47 cd 1.66±0.47 d 2.33±0.41 cd 3.66±0.33 bc 6±0.83 a 1.49
NN 21±2.44 bc 19±2.94 bcd 24.33±4.78 b 36.33±2.49 a 14.32±1.69 e 14.23±1.66 e 16±3.26 cde 21.23±2.49 bc 23.31±3.09 b 5.96
LN 24.61±3.29 b 17.21±1.69 de 23.3±4.18 bc 46±3.25 a 14.66±3.08 e 14.61±2.62 e 19.32±2.49 cde 19±0.81 cde 19.66±1.24 cde 5.18
LL(cm) 15±1.63 cd 19±1.41 ab 22±0.81 a 19±0.8 ab 13.3±2.86 d 12.66±0.47 d 17±0.82 bc 19±1.4 ab 19.6±1.22 ab 3.15
LW(cm) 10.3±1.12 d 12.6±1.2 bc 15.5±0.4 a 13.16±0.62 bc 9.66±1.19 de 8±0.81 e 11.6±1.24 cd 13.83±0.62 abc 14.33±1.21 ab 2.24
Root L.(cm) 26.66±2.49 cd 28.33±2.35 bcd 34±2.16 ab 37.21±6.54 a 23.61±3.39 d 30±1.63 bcd 29±2.16 bcd 32±1.63 abc 35±4.08 ab 7.02
RFW(g) 3.04±1.16 e 5.16±0.89 bcde 6.8±1.29 abcd 10.1±3.47 a 3.5±1.44 cde 3.3±1.52 de 7.1±1.75 abc 7±1.43 abc 8.33±1.58 ab 3.6
RDW(g) 0.2±0.04 cd 0.37±0.05 bcd 0.54±0.14 ab 0.62±0.29 a 0.13±0.06 d 0.12±0.08 cd 0.29±0.11 cd 0.54±0.05 ab 0.42±0.06 abc 0.24
Stolon L.(cm) 34.66±4.49 bc 38±4.32 ab 34.32±2.62 bc 43.61±7.58 a 24±5.09 d 27±3.55 cd 29.3±4.18 bcd 35.66±3.29 abc 33.12±1.24 bc 8.97
SFW(g) 2.1±0.35 d 2.7±0.5 bcd 2.93±0.61 bcd 4.7±0.86 a 2.2±0.68 cd 1.03±0.49 e 3.2±0.48 bc 2.76±0.4 bcd 3.33±0.75 b 1.03
SDW(g) 0.1±0.01 de 0.17±0.03 bc 0.21±0.05 ab 0.24±0.04 a 0.05±0.01 ef 0.02±0.01 f 0.05±0.02 ef 0.13±0.02 cd 0.07±0.01 def 0.06

 

Note: Different letters in the column indicate significant differences (P<0.05

 

 

The growth parameters of Golden King variety has been grown under different LEDs light irradiation is represented in Table 1. The highest plant heights have been recorded in the treatment of L4(R:B: FR) around 56.67±7.4, whereas the lowest is in the treatment L5 (R:B:G: FR), 32±4.32. As well as L3, L6, L7, L8 and, L9 Show similar result, 46.33±3.09, 40.37±2.49, 46.33±3.68, 44±2.94, 42±2.44 respectively. The parameter of stem diameter is showing high in the treatment L3(R:B: G), 7.02±0.43 mm, besides, in the treatment L2 also show a significant increasing trend, 6.75±0.95 mm. Plant fresh weight (PFW), Plant dry weight (PDW), and Branch number (BN) have been found the highest result in the treatment of L4, 67±14.44 g, 4.4±1.55 g, and 4.33±0.47 are individual. However, in the treatment L6 shows the minimal result, 12.86±1.92 g, 0.56±0.04 g, and, 1.66±0.47 respectively. Moreover, Node number(NN) and leaf number(LN), are higher in the treatment L4 and the result is 1 time better than any other treatments, 36.33±2.49, 46±3.25. However, the lowest number has been found in treatment L6, 14.23±1.66, and 14.61±2.62 respectively. The highest leaf length(LL) and leaf width(LW) have found in the treatment L3, 22±0.81 cm, and 15.5±0.4 cm. but, the lowest result has been illustrated in the treatment of L6, 12.66±0.47 cm, and 8±0.81 cm as well. Furthermore, the best Root length(RL), stolon length have been represented in the treatment of L4, 37.21±6.54 cm and 43.61±7.58 cm, but n the treatment L5 shows the lowest result inn root and stolon length, 23.61±3.39 and 24±5.09 consequently. Root fresh weight (RFW) and Root dry weight (RDW), Stolon fresh weight (SFW) and, Stolon dry weight (SDW) has been presented in the treatment of L4(R:B: FR), 10.1±3.47 g, 0.62±0.29 g 4.7±0.86 g and 0.24±0.04 g whereas, the lowest has been found in the treatment L6, 3.3±1.52 g, 0.12±0.08, 1.03±0.49 and, 0.02±0.01 g, as well. It is observed that lightcombination of R:B:FR plays a very important role to plant growth and development, stem, stolon root elongation compare to other light treatments.

Fig 1: Show the Photosynthetic Pigments of Potato Plant under Different Lights.

Different letters in each bar graph indicate significant differences (P<0.05)

 

The table is representing the chlorophyll A, Chlorophyll B, total Chlorophyll, and Carotenoid content the Golden king variety under different LED light irradiation. The level of Chlorophyll A does not have a significant difference. However, Chlorophyll B(Chl B) has significant differences. The highest amount of Chl B and total Chl content have been recorded under treatment L8, around 14.35±0.6 mg/100 g and 24.21±0.64 mg/100 g respectively around 2 times more than the plant in the natural light condition both in Chl B and total Chl content. Whereas, under light L2 shows the lowest amount of Chl B content compares to other treatments, 9.55±0.32 mg/100 g as well. It is observed from this data of fig 1, (R:B:W:FR), (R:B:G) and (R:B:G:FR) light combination have a trend to increase Chl b content in potato plant. Furthermore, L2 presents the lowest Carotenoid content compare to other light treatment 269.05±21.44 mg/100 g. However, L7 illustrated the highest amount of Car content, also, L4, L5 and L8 also show a significant result very similar to L7,  297.37±4.02,299.96±3.08 and, 296.25±6.84 consequently.

 

Fig 2: Secondary metabolites of potato leaf and tuber under various LED light treatments.

Different letters in each bar graph indicate significant differences (P<0.05)

 

Fig 2 is has been illustrated the result of potato tuber and leaf total soluble carbohydrate (TSC) and soluble sucrose (SC) content treated potato under different irradiation of LEDs light treatments. The highest TSC content in the leaf has been recorded under the L2(R:B), 160.1±5.17 mg/100 g, However, the lowest result has been shown in the treatment L6(R:B:G:FR:UV) around, 122.92±5.28. Besides, in the tuber, the highest TSC content has found in the treatment L9(R:B:W:FR:UV), 182.18±7.35, but in the treatment L5 and L6 has recorded very similar result it has significantly decrease, 115.98±3.85 and 116.46±4.33 respectively. Moreover, in the light L2 and L4 also shown significantly increasing results, 162.91±6.02 and 168.84±6.95 consequently. Furthermore, the sucrose content in the leaf has been shown the highest amount in the treatment L2(R:B), 82.35±4.14 as well as in the treatment L8 also represent the very similar result of L2 as well, 81.8±5.53. However, the lowest result has been recorded in the treatment of L4,65.03±4.14 as well. Sucrose content in tuber is not significantly different except treatment L7, in this treatment, the highest amount of sucrose content has been found. Besides, treatment L3 and L4 also have increasing trends compare to other treatments, 82.63±9.8 and 81.5±9.15 mg/100 g

 

Fig 3:Effects of LEDs on the yield of potato tubers

Different letters in each bar graph indicate significant differences (P<0.05)

 

Light pretreated Golden king potato variety, Tuberization result has been presented in fig 3. The highest number is recorded under light L4, 21.33±4.1. however, the lowest tuber number has been represented under light L6, 6±0.82. Whereas the highest number of tuber fresh weight has been found under L9, 30.33±2.05. Besides, L2 and L3 also show a good tuberization trend that is very close to the best tuberization light treatment, around 19.66±3.85 and 20±3.26 respectively. Moreover, L7, L8, and L9show fewer tubers but they show a higher amount of tuber fresh weight. About, 13.66±1.24, 14.33±1.22, 14±2.16 and 27.63±2.49, 29.33±2.41, 30.33±2.05 consequently. In general, the combination of R:B:FR show more tuber and tuber fresh weight compare to R:B:FR:G.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homework Valley
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Our Advantages

Plagiarism Free Papers

All our papers are original and written from scratch. We will email you a plagiarism report alongside your completed paper once done.

Free Revisions

All papers are submitted ahead of time. We do this to allow you time to point out any area you would need revision on, and help you for free.

Title-page

A title page preceeds all your paper content. Here, you put all your personal information and this we give out for free.

Bibliography

Without a reference/bibliography page, any academic paper is incomplete and doesnt qualify for grading. We also offer this for free.

Originality & Security

At Homework Valley, we take confidentiality seriously and all your personal information is stored safely and do not share it with third parties for any reasons whatsoever. Our work is original and we send plagiarism reports alongside every paper.

24/7 Customer Support

Our agents are online 24/7. Feel free to contact us through email or talk to our live agents.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

We work around the clock to see best customer experience.

Pricing

Flexible Pricing

Our prices are pocket friendly and you can do partial payments. When that is not enough, we have a free enquiry service.

Communication

Admission help & Client-Writer Contact

When you need to elaborate something further to your writer, we provide that button.

Deadlines

Paper Submission

We take deadlines seriously and our papers are submitted ahead of time. We are happy to assist you in case of any adjustments needed.

Reviews

Customer Feedback

Your feedback, good or bad is of great concern to us and we take it very seriously. We are, therefore, constantly adjusting our policies to ensure best customer/writer experience.