Next Article in Journal
Plant Extract Treatments Induce Resistance to Bacterial Spot by Tomato Plants for a Sustainable System
Previous Article in Journal
Tomato Breeding for Sustainable Crop Systems: High Levels of Zingiberene Providing Resistance to Multiple Arthropods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/horticulturae6020035
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Growth and Bioactive Compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. Grown under Various Ratios of Red and Blue Light

by
Hye Ri Lee
1,
Hyeon Min Kim
2,
Hyeon Woo Jeong
1 and
Seung Jae Hwang
1,3,4,5,*
1
Division of Applied Life Science, Graduate School of Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
2
Division of Plant Resources, Korea National Arboretum, Yangpyeong 12519, Korea
3
Department of Agricultural Plant Science, College of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
4
Institute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
5
Research of Institute of Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2020, 6(2), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6020035
Submission received: 15 April 2020 / Revised: 5 June 2020 / Accepted: 8 June 2020 / Published: 10 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Developmental Physiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We investigated the effects of red and blue light on the growth and content of bioactive compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br in a closed-type plant production system (CPPS). The seedlings of Salvia plebeia R. Br. were transplanted into a deep floating technique system with nutrient recycling (pH 6.5 and electrical conductivity (EC) 1.5 dS∙m−1). The plants were cultured for a duration of 35 days at 25 ± 1 °C, with relative humidity 60 ± 5%, a 12/12 h (light/dark) photoperiod, and a light intensity of 180 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 photosynthetic flux photon density, providing standard fluorescent (FL) lighting and various light qualities of red:blue ratios (10:0, 7:3, 5:5, 3:7, and 0:10) in the CPPS. The growth characteristics of Salvia plebeia R. Br., such as leaf length, leaf area, and fresh and dry weights of shoots, were the greatest in Red only and R7B3. The leaf shape index was the highest in Blue only and specific leaf weight was lower in FL and Blue than in the other treatments. The photosynthetic rate was the highest in R7B3. The total phenolic and flavonoid concentrations per gram of fresh weight of Salvia plebeia R. Br. were higher in combined light, such as R7B3, R5B5, and B3B7, than in the monochromatic light treatments. However, the antioxidant activity per fresh weight was the highest in FL. In conclusion, the results suggest that 7:3 is the most effective red and blue light ratio for production of high quality Salvia plebeia R. Br. in a CPPS.

1. Introduction

Salvia plebeia R. Br. is an annual or biennial plant belonging to the Lamiaceae family. The leaves are oval or lanceolate, their stems are square-shaped, and it is native to warm and humid areas in Korea, Japan, and China. The main bioactive compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. include flavonoids, polyphenols, saponin, cardiac glycosides, and unsaturated sterols [1,2], as well as luteolin-7-O-glucoside, caffeic acid, hispidulin, rosmarinic acid, nepetin, hispidulin-7-O-glucoside [3], plebeianiol A, and diterpenoids [4]. Typically, young leaves of Salvia plebeia R. Br. are eaten as a vegetable and used as a crude drug. The extracts of the plant are reported to have respiratory protection effects [5], fat cell differentiation and fat accumulation inhibitory effects [6], anti-inflammatory effects [7], anti-diabetes mellitus effects [8], anti-cancer effects [2], and antioxidant effects [9]. In addition, it is known to be effective as a treatment for immune diseases. Although it can be used as a material for functional foods, studies of mass production cultivation techniques are lacking.
Light is an important element that controls plant growth, development, and metabolism through light quality, light intensity, light direction, and photoperiod, and is an essential energy source for photosynthesis [10,11]. Light quality, which designates color or wavelength, strongly influences the physiological, morphological, and biochemical parameters of plants more than light intensity or photoperiod [12,13,14]. The different wavelength ranges, such as visible light (400–700 nm), which is called photosynthetic active radiation (PAR), ultraviolet rays (UV), and far-red, can be used for various purposes as well as plant photosynthesis [15]. Previous studies indicated that the apparent photomorphogenic responses of plants to light quality are controlled by networks of multiple photoreceptors, including phytochromes, phototropins, and cryptochromes [16,17]. Phytochromes perceive red and far-red light, whereas blue light is absorbed by cryptochromes and phototropins [18,19]. Therefore, red light (600–700 nm) and blue light (400–500 nm) were reported to serve as essential sources for photosynthesis [14], since these wavelengths coincide with the photosynthetic pigments absorption peak [20]. Red and blue light also have an important impact on plant growth and development [21,22].
Plant responses to red light generally include seed germination, cell development and elongation, fresh and dry weight increases, and increase in leaf area [23,24,25]. The plant response to blue light includes stomatal opening, compact growth, and flavonoid accumulation [26,27]. However, monochromatic red or blue light is insufficient for the requirements of normal plant growth. The net photosynthetic rate, chlorophyll content, and fresh weight of plants grown under monochromatic light were lower compared to under red light supplemented with blue light [28,29,30,31]. Monochromatic red light decreased leaf area and delayed opening of flowers on cucumber seedlings after transplanting [32]. Johkan et al. [23] reported that lettuce had a smaller leaf area and lower fresh weight when grown under monochromatic light compared with combined red and blue light.
Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the influence of red and blue light irradiation on the growth, photosynthetic rate, and bioactive compound accumulation for the cultivation of the medicinal plant, Salvia plebeia R. Br., in a closed-type plant production system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials and Light Treatment

Seeds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. (Asia seed Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea) were sown in 128-hole plug trays filled in formed medium (Terra-plug, Smithers-Oasis Co. Ltd., Cheonan, Korea) in a closed-type plant production system (CPPS; C1200H3, FC Poibe Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea) at a temperature of 25 ± 1 °C, with a relative humidity of 60 ± 5%, photoperiod of 12/12 h (light/dark), and light intensity of 180 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 photosynthetic photon flux density. The 40-day-old seedlings were transplanted into a deep floating technique system with recycling multipurpose nutrient solution ((CaNO3)2·4H2O 472.0, KNO3 202.0, KH2PO4 272.0, NH4NO3 80.0, MgSO4·7H2O 246.0, Fe-EDTA 15.0, H3BO3 1.4, MnSO4·4H2O 2.1, ZnSO4·7H2O 0.8, CuSO4·5H2O 0.2, Na2MoO4·2H2O 0.1 mg·L−1, pH 6.5, and electrical conductivity (EC) 1.0 dS·m−1) in a CPPS. The plants were cultured for a duration of 35 days under the same growth conditions as the germination conditions. The light treatments, sourced from fluorescent lamps (FL, FHF32SSEX-D, Osram Co. Ltd., Munich, Germany) and red and blue light emitting diodes (LEDs; ES LEDs Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea), were as follows: FL (control), Red (red:blue = 10:0), Blue (red:blue = 0:10), R7B3 (red:blue = 7:3), R5B5 (red:blue = 5:5), and R3B7 (red:blue = 3:7). The light spectral distributions of the experiment were measured using a spectroradiometer (ILT950, International Light Technologies Inc., Peabody, MA, USA) at 5 points (center and four edges, Figure 1), and the light intensity (mean with five places) was measured using a photometer (HD2101.2, Delta Ohm SrL, Caselle, Italy).

2.2. Growth Characteristics

At 35 days after initiating light treatments, the leaf length, leaf width, fresh weight (FW) and dry weight (DW) of shoots and roots, and leaf area were measured. Leaf area was measured using a leaf area meter (LI-3000, LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). The FW was measured using an electronic balance (EW220-3NM, Kern & Sohn GmbH., Balingen, Germany) and the DW was measured after drying in an oven (Venticell-220, MMM Medcenter Einrichtunger GmbH., Planegg, Germany) at 70 °C for 72 h. The leaf epinasty index was used following Fukuda [33], and calculated as:
Leaf   epinasty   index   = 1 − 0.5 ( LD LW )
where LD is the distance between the two edges of the leaf at the level of the maximum width and LW is the maximum leaf width when flat. The specific leaf weight (SLW) and leaf shape index were calculated using:
SLW (mg∙cm−2) = dry weight of leaf (mg)/total leaf area (cm2)
Leaf shape index = leaf length/leaf width
The chlorophyll content was measured using a portable chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Photosynthetic rate was measured using a portable photosynthesis system (CIRAS-3, PP Systems International Inc., Amesbury, MA, USA) on a completely unfolded fifth leaf from the apex. The measurement conditions were controlled as follows: air flow rate 150 mL·min−1, leaf area 4.5 mm2, leaf temperature 25 °C, CO2 concentration 500 µmol∙mol−1, and 180 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD).

2.3. Bioactive Compounds

2.3.1. Total Phenolics

A 1 g leaf sample was immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and then finely ground. To extract phenolic compounds, the sample was mixed with 5 mL of 80% methanol. The mixture was shaken for 24 h at room temperature and then centrifuged at 10,509× g for 10 min. After centrifugation, the supernatant was used to determine total phenolic concentration [34]. The total phenolic concentration of Salvia plebeia R. Br. was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent method of Singleton and Rossi [34]. Approximately 200 μL of extract was mixed with 300 μL distilled water and 250 μL 2N Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO, USA). The mixture was then combined with 1.25 mL of 20% Na2CO3, vortexed for 5 s, and incubated at room temperature for 20 min. The absorbance of the supernatant was measured with a spectrophotometer (Libra S22, Biochrom Ltd., Cambridge, UK) at 735 nm to determine the total phenolic concentration, which is expressed as μg gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per mg of FW.

2.3.2. Total Flavonoids

The extraction method for the total flavonoid concentration of the sample was the same as for total phenolic concentration. The total flavonoid concentration of the leaf was determined using a method modified from Kumaran and Karunakaran [35]. A volume of 900 μL of 80% methanol and 1 mL of 2% AlCl3 were added to 100 μL of the extract. After vortexing for 5 s, the mixture was reacted at room temperature for 40 min. The absorbance of the samples was measured with a spectrophotometer at 415 nm to determine the total flavonoid concentration, which is expressed as μg quercetin equivalent (QE) per mg of FW.

2.3.3. Antioxidant Activity

The extraction method for antioxidant activity was the same as for total phenolic concentration. The antioxidant activity of Salvia plebeia R. Br. was determined according to a modified 2,2-diphenyl-1picrylhydrazyl (DPPH, Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) method for free radical scavenging activity [36]. To 100 μL of the extract, 1 mL of 0.3 mM DPPH was added. After vortexing for 5 s, the mixture was reacted at room temperature for 20 min in dark conditions. The absorbance of the samples was measured using a spectrophotometer at 517 nm and the scavenging activity of DPPH free radicals was calculated as:
Scavenging   activity   ( % ) =   ( 1 − absorbace   of   sample   at   517   mm absorbace   of   control   at   517   mm ) × 100
To determine the antioxidant activity of samples, a standard curve was prepared using 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox), and DPPH free radicals scavenging activity (%) calculated using the above equation was converted to activity in terms of μg Trolox equivalents (TE) per mg FW of the sample.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The experiments were repeated 3 times with 10 plants per repetition for each treatment, each in a randomized complete block design. After selecting plants of uniform size, 9 plants per treatment were used to determine plant growth parameters. The bioactive compounds were measured using 6 plants per treatment. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Analysis System program (SAS 9.1, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Experiment results were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple range tests. The SigmaPlot program was used for graphing (SigmaPlot 12.0, Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Growth Characterics

The leaf characteristics of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by various light treatment at 35 days after transplanting are shown in Figure 2A. The leaf growth characteristics, such as leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, and SLW, tended to be higher in the treatments with a high ratio of red to blue light, such as Red and R7B3; in the treatments with a high ratio of blue light, Blue and R3B7, these values were lower. The leaf length and leaf width were the greatest in Red and R7B3, at 12.3 and 6.4 cm, respectively (Figure 2B,C). Similarly, the leaf area was the largest in R7B3 at 843.7 cm2, and the smallest in FL (control) at 382.0 cm2 (Figure 2D). The SLW, representing leaf thickness, was the lowest in FL and Blue (Figure 2E). Red light is known to develop the chlorophyll by stimulating phytochrome, which is a photoreceptor that plays an essential role in the growth and development of plants [37,38]. Although the effect of light quality on plant growth and morphology may vary depending on plant species, many studies have shown that red light elongates the plant and blue light inhibits plant height [39,40]. In this study, red light promoted leaf growth. In addition, Salvia splendens F. exhibited increased leaf area, plant height, and shoot dry weight in monochromatic red light compared to monochromatic blue light [41].
The leaf epinasty index of Salvia plebeia R. Br. was the lowest in Blue (Figure 3A). The leaf epinasty index indicates the degree of leaf epinasty as follows: 0, closed; 0.5, open horizontally; and 1.0, close to the abaxial side. Epinasty, in which the edges of the leaves droop down, does not occur under blue light alone, so red light is considered to be closely related to epinasty. These results are consistent with the results of a study on red light inducing epinasty in Pelargonium zonale Ait. (geranium) [33]. In addition, Lee et al. [42] reported the epinasty of Spinacia oleracea (spinach) in red and mixed light. The leaf shape index of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by light quality was lowest in R5B5 and R3B7 (Figure 3B). The higher leaf shape index was due to a longer and narrower leaf, and the shorter and broader leaf shapes indicated the lower leaf shape index. Previous studies reported that red light leads to long leaves in Lactuca sativa L. (lettuce) [43,44], which is similar to the results in this study.
The fresh and dry weights of shoots and roots of Salvia plebeia R. Br. are shown in Table 1. The fresh weight of shoots was the greatest in Red and R7B3 at 31.3 and 33.5 g, respectively. Fresh and dry weights of shoots were the lowest in FL at 11.3 and 0.9 g, respectively. In Red, the fresh and dry weights of roots increased by 3.7 and 4.0 times that of FL, respectively. Red light can be used effectively in photosynthesis during leaf development and lead to the accumulation of starch [45], increasing the biomass of plants [23,46]. Several studies have reported that red light increased the fresh and dry weights of shoots in various crops, such as Solanum lycopersicum L. (tomato) seedlings, Perilla frutescens L., lettuce, and Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L. (ice plant) [25,47,48,49].

3.2. SPAD Value and Photosynthetic Parameters

The soil-plant analysis development (SPAD) value, which indicates chlorophyll content, is shown in Figure 4. The SPAD value was the highest in R5B5 at 54.5 and the lowest in Blue at 41.2. Red and blue light influence energy provision, the accumulation of pigments, such as chlorophyll and carotenoid, secondary pigments involved in photosynthetic CO2 fixation, and basic metabolism [50,51]. The chlorophyll content of Brassica oleracea var. italica L. (kale) and Brassica oleracea var. acephala DC (broccoli) grown under monochromatic blue light was reported to be reduced [52,53]. In contrast, other studies have reported that blue light increased the chlorophyll content of lettuce and Brassica pekinensis Rupr. (Chinese cabbage) [23,31]. The chlorophyll content affected by light quality was indicated depending on varieties. To investigate the photosynthetic ability of Salvia plebeia R. Br. under the different light treatments, the photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, and intercellular CO2 concentration were measured at 35 days after transplanting.
The photosynthetic rate was significantly higher in R7B3 at 5.7 μmol CO2 m−2∙s−1. Blue had the lowest photosynthetic rate, only 54% of that of R7B3 (Figure 5A). The stomatal conductance and transpiration rate were lower in FL compared with LED treatments (Figure 5B,C). The intercellular CO2 concentration was the opposite of the photosynthetic rate: Blue was 1.3 times more than R7B3 (Figure 5D).
The combination of red and blue light and far-red irradiation more efficiently promote photosynthesis than monochromatic light [54], producing a synergistic effect via phytochromes and crytochromes [55]. Some studies reported that the combination of red and blue light effectively increased the dry weight of lettuce compared with monochromatic red light [27,56]. Stomatal conductance can be expressed as an indicator of the degree of stoma opening and closure in leaves. CO2, which is essential for photosynthesis, moving through the stomata suggests that stomatal conductance affects photosynthetic rate. In this study, when the stomatal conductance was high, the photosynthetic rate was also high. Also, Roni et al. [57] reported that with a high photosynthetic rate, demand for CO2 was high, leading to a lower intercellular CO2 concentration in Eustoma leaves, and that blue light had a higher intercellular CO2 concentration compared with red light under same light intensity. This is because at a higher assimilation rate, more intercellular CO2 is converted to photosynthetic products.

3.3. Bioactive Compounds

To investigate possible differences in the bioactive compound content of Salvia plebeia R. Br. under various light qualities, the concentrations of total phenolics, total flavonoids, and antioxidant activity were investigated at 35 days after transplanting. The bioactive compounds per unit FW had the lowest concentration in monochromatic red light (Figure 6A,C,E). The total phenolic concentration per gram FW was 1.3 times higher in R3B7 than Red.
The total flavonoid concentration per gram FW was the lowest in FL and Red at 92.7 and 93.9 μg∙mg−1, respectively. The antioxidant activity per gram FW was the highest in FL. R7B3, which had a high fresh weight and tended to have the highest content of bioactive compounds per plant (shoot) (Figure 6B,D,F). In R7B3, the contents of total phenolics, total flavonoids, and antioxidant activity per plant were 3.3, 4.0, and 2.3 times higher than in FL, respectively. Phytochemicals are known to have many benefits for human health, such as anti-allergenic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-viral activities [58,59,60]. Their accumulation and biosynthesis are affected by many growth conditions, such as light, temperature, nutrient solution, and CO2 [61,62,63]. In particular, light is associated with the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites as well as plant growth. It is known that red light promotes the development of photosynthesis-related organs of leaves and the accumulation of starch [45,64], and blue light affects the accumulation of chemical components on plants, chloroplast development, and the formation of chlorophyll [65]. In previous studies, blue light induced the accumulation of total phenolic, anthocyanin, and chlorogenic acid in lettuce, and myo-inositol and pinitol in ice plants [23,44,66]. Park et al. [67] reported that the total phenolic and hydroxycinnamic acid concentration per DW showed no significant difference between combined light and monochromatic light in Crepidiastrum denticulatum (Houtt.) Pak & Kawano, but content per shoot was higher in combined light, which showed better growth than monochromatic light. Also, Spalholz et al. [68] reported that the total phenolic content of lettuce was 1.3 times higher in a combination of red and blue light in monochromatic red or blue light. Hernández et al. [69] grew tomato seedlings under various red and blue light ratios and found that seedlings in red and blue combination light treatments had 2–3 times greater anthocyanin concentration than in monochromatic blue light. In this study, similar to the results of previous studies, the content of bioactive compounds per plant was higher in the combination light, with better growth than with monochromatic light. The antioxidant activity per FW tended to be high in FL, suggesting that the FL spectrum can stimulate antioxidant activity. Park et al. [70] also reported that DPPH radical scavenging activity of Salvia plebeia R. Br. was higher in FL than white, red, and blue light.

4. Conclusions

Various light qualities affected the growth, morphogenesis, photosynthesis, and accumulation of bioactive compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. In Red and R7B3, which were subject to high ratios of red light, the biomass increased. In addition, red light induced the elongation of leaves, which had the highest leaf length and leaf area. Blue light induced thin and long leaves, with no leaf epinasty. The photosynthetic rate and bioactive compound content per plant were the highest in R7B3. These results indicate that R7B3, a 7:3 ratio of red to blue light, is suitable for cultivating high quality Salvia plebeia R. Br. in a CPPS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J.H.; methodology, H.R.L. and S.J.H.; software, H.R.L.; validation, H.R.L., H.M.K., and H.W.J.; formal analysis, H.R.L.; investigation, H.R.L., H.M.K., and H.W.J.; resources, S.J.H.; data curation, H.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.R.L.; writing—review and editing, S.J.H.; visualization, H.R.L.; supervision, S.J.H.; project administration, H.R.L.; funding acquisition, S.J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out with the support of “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ01277301)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gu, L.; Weng, X. Antioxidant activity and component of Salvia plebeia R. Br.—A Chinese herb. Food Chem. 2001, 73, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shin, M.K.; Kim, S.K.; Lee, S.K.; Yang, E.Y.; Lee, H.O.; Baek, S.H. Cytotoxicity and antimicrobial effect of the extract of Salvia plebeia. Korean J. Pharmacogn. 2001, 32, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jin, X.F.; Lu, Y.H.; Wei, D.Z.; Wang, Z.T. Chemical fingerprint and quantitative analysis of Salvia plebeia R.Br. by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2008, 48, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zhang, B.B.; He, B.Q.; Sun, J.B.; Zeng, B.; Shi, X.J.; Zhou, Y.; Niu, Y.; Nie, S.Q.; Feng, F.; Liang, Y.; et al. Diterpenoids from Salvia plebeia R. Br. and their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. Molecules 2015, 25, 269–281. [Google Scholar]
  5. Song, H.W.; Ji, K.Y.; Kim, B.K.; Yang, W.K.; Han, C.K.; Shin, H.J.; Park, Y.C.; Hwang, J.S.; Kang, H.S.; Kim, S.H. Respiratory protective effect of Salvia plebeia R. Br. extracts against ambient particulate matter-induced airway inflammation. Korean J. Med. Crop. Sci. 2017, 25, 269–281. [Google Scholar]
  6. Choi, S.I.; Kwak, H.Y.; Kim, J.Y.; Choi, J.G.; Lee, J.H. Antiadipogenic effects of Salvia plebeia R. Br. extracts by extraction conditions in 3T3-L1 preadipocytes. Korean J. Med. Crop. Sci. 2015, 23, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shin, H.J.; Gwak, H.M.; Jang, M.; Park, S.H.; Min, H.J.; Lee, J.M.; Lee, M.Y.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, S.W.; Han, C.K.; et al. Anti-inflammatory activity of three kinds of Salvia and its active compounds. Korean J. Med. Crop. Sci. 2016, 24, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, S.H.; Kwon, C.S.; Lee, J.S.; Son, K.H.; Lim, J.K.; Kim, J.S. Inhibition of carbohydrate-digesting enzyme and amelioration of glucose tolerance by Korean medicinal herbs. J. Food. Sci. Nutr. 2002, 7, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lim, J.A.; Yun, B.W.; Baek, S.H. Antioxidative activity and nitrite scavenging ability of methanol extract from Salvia plebeia R. Br. Korean J. Med. Crop. Sci. 2007, 15, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  10. Costa, A.G.; Chagas, J.H.; Pinto, J.E.B.P.; Bertolucci, S.K.V. Vegetative growth and yield of essential oil of peppermint grown under nets. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2012, 47, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Costa, A.G.; Chagas, J.H.; Bertolucci, S.K.V.; Pinto, J.E.B.P. Shading levels and net type on vegetative growth and essential oil production of peppermint. Hortic. Bras. 2014, 32, 19–199. [Google Scholar]
  12. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E. Plant Physiology, 1st ed.; Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 179–264. [Google Scholar]
  13. Macedo, A.F.; Leal-Costa, M.V.; Tavares, E.S.; Lage, C.L.S.; Esquibel, M.A. The effect of light quality on leaf production and development of in vitro-cultured plants of Alternanthera brasiliana Kuntze. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2011, 70, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lin, K.H.; Huang, M.Y.; Huang, W.D.; Hsu, M.H.; Yang, Z.W.; Yang, C.M. The effect of red, blue, and white light-emitting diodes on the growth, development, and edible quality of hydroponically grown lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. capitate). Sci. Hortic. 2013, 150, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pocock, T. Light-emitting diodes and the modulation of specialty crops: Light sensing and signaling networks in plants. HortScience 2015, 50, 1281–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Ouyang, X.O.; Li, J.; Li, G.; Li, B.; Chen, B.; Shen, H.; Huang, X.; Mo, X.; Wan, X.; Lin, R.; et al. Genome-wide binding site analysis of FAR-RED ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL3 reveals its novel function in Arabidopsis development. Plant Cell 2011, 23, 2514–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Tang, W.; Wang, W.; Chen, D.; Ji, Q.; Jing, Y.; Wang, H.; Lin, R. Transposase-derived proteins FHU3/FAR1 interact with PHYTOCHROME-INTERACTING FACTOR1 to regulate chlorophyll biosynthesis by Modulating HEMB1 during deetiolation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2012, 35, 1984–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Kami, C.; Lorrain, S.; Hornitschek, P.; Fankhause, C. Light—regulated plant growth and development. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2010, 91, 29–66. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Chao, D.Y.; Lin, H.X. The tricks plants use to reach appropriate light. Sci. Chin. Life Sci. 2010, 53, 916–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pfündel, E.; Baake, E. A quantitative description of fluorescence excitation spectra in intact greened leaves greened under intermittent light. Photosynth. Res. 1990, 26, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Massa, C.D.; Kim, H.H.; Wheeler, T.M.; Mitchell, C.A. Plant productivity in response to LED lighting. HortScience 2008, 4, 1951–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abidi, F.; Girault, T.; Douillet, O.; Cuillemain, G.; Sintes, G.; Laffaire, M.; Leduc, N. Blue light effects on rose photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis. Plant Biol. 2013, 15, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Johkan, M.; Shoji, K.; Goto, F.; Hasida, S.; Yoshihara, T. Blue light emitting diode light irradiation of seedlings improves seedling quality and growth after transplanting in red leaf lettuce. HortScience 2010, 45, 1809–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Pietik, R.; de Wit, M. Shade avoidance: Phytochrome signaling and other aboveground neighbor detection cues. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 65, 2815–2824. [Google Scholar]
  25. Shimizu, H.; Saito, Y.; Nakashima, H.; Miyasaka, J.; Ohdoi, K. Light environment optimization for lettuce growth in plant factory. In Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World Congress, Milano, Italy, 28 August–2 September 2011; pp. 605–609. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang, H.; Gu, M.; Cui, J.; Shi, K.; Zhou, Y.; Yu, J. Effects of light quality on CO2 assimilation, chlorophyll-fluorescence quenching, expression of Calvin cycle genes and carbohydrate accumulation in Cucumis sativus. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2009, 96, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Stutte, G.W.; Edney, S.; Skerritt, T. Photoregulation of bioprotectant content of red leaf lettuce with light-emitting diodes. HortScience 2009, 44, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Christie, J.M.; Blackwood, L.; Petersen, J.; Sullivan, S. Plant flavoprotein photoreceptors. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 56, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Naznin, M.T.; Lefsrud, M.T.; Lefsrud, M.G.; Gravel, V.; Wu, B.S.; Reddy, S. Effect of different ratios of red and blue LED light on lettuce production and phytochemical accumulation. In Proceedings of the ASHS Annual Conference, Nottoway, VA, USA, 4 August 2015; pp. 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hernández, R.; Kubota, C. Physiological responses of cucumber seedlings under different blue and red photon flux ratios using LEDs. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2016, 121, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, J.; Lu, W.; Tong, X.Y.; Yang, Q.C. Leaf morphology, photosynthetic performance, chlorophyll fluorescence, stomatal development of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) exposed to different ratios of red light to blue light. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Miao, Y.X. Physiological Response Mechanism of Cucumber Seedlings to Red and Blue Light. Ph.D. Thesis, China Agriculture University, Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fukuda, N.; Fujita, M.; Ohta, Y.; Sase, S.; Nishimura, S.; Ezura, H. Directional blue light irradiation triggers epidermal cell elongation of abaxial side resulting in inhibition of leaf epinasty in geranium under red light condition. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 115, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 1965, 16, 144–157. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kumaran, A.; Karunakaran, J. In vitro antioxidant activities of methanol extracts of five Phyllanthus species from India. Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 40, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yamaguchi, T.; Takamura, H.; Matoba, T.; Terao, J. HPLC method for evaluation of the free radical scavenging activity of foods by using 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1998, 62, 1201–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kim, H.H.; Wheeler, R.; Sager, J.; Norikane, J. Photosynthesis of lettuce exposed to different short term light qualities. Environ. Control Biol. 2005, 43, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Folta, K.M.; Childers, K.S. Light as a growth regulator: Controlling plants biology with narrow-bandwidth solid-state lighting systems. HortScience 2008, 43, 1957–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Rajapakse, N.C.; Kelly, J.W. Regulation of chrysanthemum growth by spectral filters. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1995, 120, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McCree, K.J. Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data. Agric. Meterol. 1972, 10, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wollaeger, H.M.; Runkle, E.S. Growth of impatiens, petunia, salvia, and tomato seedlings under blue, green, and red light-emitting diodes. HortScience 2014, 49, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, M.O.; Park, S.M.; Cho, E.K.; An, J.H.; Choi, E.Y. Changes of plant growth, leaf morphology and cell elongation of Spinacia oleracea grown under different light-emitting diodes. J. Bio-Environ. Con. 2018, 27, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, J.G.; Oh, S.S.; Cha, S.H.; Jang, Y.A.; Kim, S.Y.; Um, Y.C.; Cheong, S.R. Effects of red/blue light ratio and short-term light quality conversion on growth and anthocyanin contents of baby leaf lettuce. J. Bio-Environ. Con. 2010, 19, 351–359. [Google Scholar]
  44. Son, K.H.; Park, J.H.; Kim, D.I.; Oh, M.M. Leaf shape index, growth, and phytochemicals in two leaf lettuce cultivars grown under monochromatic light-emitting diodes. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2012, 30, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saebo, A.; Krekling, T.; Appelgren, M. Light quality affects photosynthesis and leaf anatomy of birch plantlets in vitro. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 1995, 41, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wu, M.C.; Hou, C.Y.; Jiang, C.M.; Wang, Y.T.; Wang, C.Y.; Chen, H.H.; Chang, H.M. A novel approach of LED light radiation improves the antioxidant activity of pea seedlings. Food Chem. 2007, 101, 1753–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nishimura, T.; Ohyama, K.; Goto, E.; Inagaki, N. Concentrations of perillaldehyde, limonene, and anthocyanin of Perilla plants as affected by light quality under controlled environments. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 122, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, Y.J.; Kim, H.M.; Hwang, S.J. Growth and phytochemical contents of ice plant as affected by light quality in a closed-type plant production system. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2016, 34, 878–885. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kim, H.M.; Hwang, S.J. The growth and development of ‘Mini Chal’ tomato plug seedlings grown under monochromatic or combined red and blue light-emitting diodes. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2019, 37, 190–205. [Google Scholar]
  50. Massa, G.; Graham, T.; Haire, T.; Flemming, C.; Newsham, G.; Wheeler, R. Light-emitting diode light transmission through leaf tissue of seven different crops. HortScience 2015, 50, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Munner, S.; Kim, E.J.; Park, J.S.; Lee, J.H. Influence of green, red and blue light emitting diodes on multiprotein complex proteins and photosynthetic activity under different light intensities in lettuce leaves (Lactuca sativa L.). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 4657–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kopesell, D.A.; Sams, C.E. Increase in shoot tissue pigments, glucosinolates, and mineral elements in sprouting broccoli after exposure to short-duration blue light from light emitting diodes. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 2013, 138, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Lefsrud, M.; Kopsell, D.A.; Sams, C.E. Irradiance from distinct wavelength light-emitting diodes affect secondary metabolites in kale. HortScience 2008, 43, 2243–2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Whitelam, G.C.; Halliday, K.J. Light and Plant Development; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  55. Usami, T.; Mochizuki, N.; Kondo, M.; Nishimura, M.; Nagatani, A. Cryptochromes and phytochromes synergistically regulate Arabidopsis root greening under blue light. Plant Cell Physiol. 2004, 45, 1798–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yorio, N.C.; Goins, C.D.; Kagie, H.R.; Wheeler, R.M.; Sager, J.C. Improving spinach, radish, and lettuce growth under red light-emitting diodes (LEDs) with blue light supplementation. HortScience 2001, 36, 380–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Roni, M.Z.K.; Islam, M.S.; Shimasaki, K. Response of Eustoma leaf phenotype and photosynthetic performance to LED light quality. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Erlund, I. Review of the flavonoids quercetin, hesperetin, and naringenin. Dietary sources, bioactivities, bioavailability, and epidemiology. Nutr. Res. 2004, 24, 851–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Crinò, P. Selection of Italian cardoon genotypes as industrial crop for biomass and polyphenol production. Ind. Crop Prod. 2013, 51, 145–151. [Google Scholar]
  60. Schmidt, S.; Zietz, M.; Schreiner, M.; Rohn, S.; Kroh, L.W.; Krumbein, A. Genotypic and climatic influence on the concentration and composition of flavonoids in kales (Brassica oleracea var. sabellica). Food Chem. 2010, 119, 1293–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xu, Y.; Wang, G.; Cao, F.; Zhu, C.; Wang, G.; El-Kassaby, Y.A. Light intensity affects the growth and flavonol biosynthesis of Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba L.). New For. 2014, 45, 765–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hernández, I.; Alegre, L.; Munné-Bosch, S. Drought-induced changes in flavonoids and other low molecular weight antioxidants in Cistus clusii grown under Mediterranean field conditions. Tree Physiol. 2004, 24, 1303–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Wang, L.; Shi, H.; Wu, J.; Cao, F. Alternative partial root-zone irrigation enhances leaf flavonoid accumulation and water efficiency of Ginkgo biloba. New For. 2016, 47, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kobayashi, K.; Amore, T.; Lazaro, M. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for miniature hydroponic lettuce. J. Opt. Photon. 2013, 3, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Hogewonging, S.W.; Trouwborst, G.; Malgaars, H.; Poorter, H.; van Ieperen, W.; Harbinson, J. Blue light dose-responses of leaf photosynthesis, morphology, and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combination of red and blue light. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 3107–3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kim, Y.J.; Kim, H.M.; Kim, H.M.; Jeong, B.R.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, H.J.; Hwang, S.J. Ice plant growth and phytochemical concentrations are affected by light quality and intensity of monochromatic light-emitting diodes. Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 2018, 59, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Park, S.Y.; Bae, J.H.; Oh, M.M. Manipulation light quality to promote shoot growth and bioactive compound biosynthesis of Crepidiastrum denticulatum (Houtt.) Pak & Kawano cultivated in plant factories. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2019, 16, 100237. [Google Scholar]
  68. Spalholz, H.; Perkins-Veazie, P.; Hernández, R. Impact of sun-simulated white light and varied blue:red spectrums on the growth, morphology, development, and phytochemical content of green- and red-leaf at different growth stages. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 264, 109–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hernández, R.; Kubota, C. Tomato seedling physiological responses under different percentages of blue and red photon flux ratios using LEDs and cool white fluorescent lamps. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 213, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Park, H.; Yu, Y.J.; Choi, E.Y. Effects of fluorescent light and light-emitting diodes on leaf morphology, growth and antioxidant capacity of Salvia plebeia. Prot. Hort. Plant Fac. 2017, 26, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 06 00035 g001 550
Figure 1. Relative spectral distribution of light used in a closed-type plant production system. (A) fluorescent lamp; (B) Red (red:blue = 10:0); (C) Blue (red:blue = 0:10); (D) R7B3 (red:blue = 7:3); (E) R5B5 (red:blue = 5:5); and (F) R3B7 (red:blue = 3:7).
Figure 1. Relative spectral distribution of light used in a closed-type plant production system. (A) fluorescent lamp; (B) Red (red:blue = 10:0); (C) Blue (red:blue = 0:10); (D) R7B3 (red:blue = 7:3); (E) R5B5 (red:blue = 5:5); and (F) R3B7 (red:blue = 3:7).
Horticulturae 06 00035 g001
Horticulturae 06 00035 g002 550
Figure 2. The growth (A), leaf length (B), leaf width (C), leaf area (D), and specific leaf weight (E) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Figure 2. The growth (A), leaf length (B), leaf width (C), leaf area (D), and specific leaf weight (E) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Horticulturae 06 00035 g002
Horticulturae 06 00035 g003 550
Figure 3. Leaf epinasty index (A) and leaf shape index (B) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3. Leaf epinasty index (A) and leaf shape index (B) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Horticulturae 06 00035 g003
Horticulturae 06 00035 g004 550
Figure 4. SPAD (soil-plant analysis development) values of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Figure 4. SPAD (soil-plant analysis development) values of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Horticulturae 06 00035 g004
Horticulturae 06 00035 g005 550
Figure 5. Photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (B), transpiration rate (C), and intercellular CO2 concentration (D) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5. Photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (B), transpiration rate (C), and intercellular CO2 concentration (D) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Horticulturae 06 00035 g005
Horticulturae 06 00035 g006 550
Figure 6. Total phenolic and total flavonoid concentration, and antioxidant activity, per fresh weight (A), (C), and (E), respectively) and total phenolic and total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity, per plant (B), (D), and (F), respectively) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6. Total phenolic and total flavonoid concentration, and antioxidant activity, per fresh weight (A), (C), and (E), respectively) and total phenolic and total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity, per plant (B), (D), and (F), respectively) of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting. Vertical bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (n = 3). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s multiple range test (α ≤ 0.05).
Horticulturae 06 00035 g006
Table
Table 1. Fresh and dry weights of shoots and roots of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting (n = 3).
Table 1. Fresh and dry weights of shoots and roots of Salvia plebeia R. Br. as affected by different light treatments at 35 days after transplanting (n = 3).
Light Quality zFresh Weight (g/plant)Dry Weight (g/plant)
ShootRootShootRoot
FL11.3 c y5.8 d0.9 d0.3 c
Red31.3 a21.3 a2.8 ab1.2 a
R7B333.5 a11.4 b3.0 a0.9 ab
R5B525.2 ab10.4 bc2.9 ab0.9 ab
R3B720.0 b6.5 cd2.2 bc0.5 bc
Blue17.4 bc10.4 bc1.6 cd0.6 bc
Significance************
z Refer to Figure 1 for details on the light quality. y Mean followed by different letters are significantly different by Tukey’s multiple range at α ≤ 0.05. *** ANOVA F significant at p ≤ 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, H.R.; Kim, H.M.; Jeong, H.W.; Hwang, S.J. Growth and Bioactive Compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. Grown under Various Ratios of Red and Blue Light. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6020035

AMA Style

Lee HR, Kim HM, Jeong HW, Hwang SJ. Growth and Bioactive Compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. Grown under Various Ratios of Red and Blue Light. Horticulturae. 2020; 6(2):35. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6020035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Hye Ri, Hyeon Min Kim, Hyeon Woo Jeong, and Seung Jae Hwang. 2020. "Growth and Bioactive Compounds of Salvia plebeia R. Br. Grown under Various Ratios of Red and Blue Light" Horticulturae 6, no. 2: 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6020035

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop