Physiological and Productivity Responses of High-wire Tomato as Affected by Supplemental Light Source and Distribution within the Canopy

Abstract

The relative coolness-to-touch of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) has enabled commercial implementation of intracanopy lighting (ICL) in the greenhouse. Intracanopy lighting, which refers to the strategy of lighting along the side or from within the foliar canopy, can increase canopy photosynthetic activity, but physiological and productivity responses of high-wire greenhouse tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) to intracanopy supplemental lighting (SL) still are not yet fully understood. Two consecutive production experiments were conducted across seasons in a glass-glazed greenhouse located in a midnorthern, continental climate [lat. 40°N (West Lafayette, IN)]. Plants were grown from winter-to-summer [increasing solar daily light integral (DLI)] and from summer-to-winter (decreasing solar DLI) to compare three SL strategies for high-wire tomato production across changing solar DLIs: top lighting with high-pressure sodium lamps (HPS) vs. intracanopy LED vertical towers vs. hybrid SL (HPS + horizontal ICL-LEDs). A control treatment also was included for which no SL was provided. Supplemental DLI for each experimental period was adjusted monthly, to complement seasonal changes in sunlight, aiming to approach a target total DLI of 25 mol·m‒2·d‒1 during fruit set. Harvest parameters (total fruit fresh weight, number of fruit harvested, and average cluster fresh weight), tissue temperature, chlorophyll fluorescence, and stomatal conductance (gS) were unaffected by SL treatment in both experiments. Among the physiological parameters evaluated, CO2 assimilation measured under light-saturating conditions, light-limited quantum-use efficiency, and maximum gross CO2 assimilation (Amax) proved to be good indicators of how ICL reduces the top-to-bottom decline in leaf photosynthetic activity otherwise measured with top lighting only (HPS-SL or solar). Although SL generally increased fruit yield relative to control, lack of SL treatment differences among harvest parameters indicates that higher crop photosynthetic activity did not increase fruit yield. Compared with control, intracanopy SL increased yield to the same extent as top SL, but the remaining photoassimilate from ICL most likely was partitioned to maintain nonharvested, vegetative plant parts as well.