The effect of different light levels on the growth of wheat Gascogne

International Research Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied and Basic Sciences© 2012 Available online at www.irjabs.comISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 3 (12): 2358-2363Science Explorer Publications<strong>The</strong> <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>different</strong> <strong>light</strong> <strong>levels</strong> on the growth <strong>of</strong>wheat GascogneElena Khabiri * and Ailar SattarzadehDepartment <strong>of</strong> Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Ardabil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, IranCorresponding author Email: Elena.khabiri@yahoo.comABSTRACT: To study the <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>light</strong> <strong>levels</strong> on the growth <strong>of</strong> wheat, was conducted in ArdabilIAU research greenhouse during 2010. <strong>The</strong> research was carried out through in-time plate splitpattern on base <strong>of</strong> completely randomized block in three replications with two treatments. Firsttreatment in normal <strong>light</strong> conditions and the treatment <strong>of</strong> <strong>light</strong> was red. Results suggested that inleaf area index (LAI) treatment No. 2 had a higher yield in absorbing sun<strong>light</strong> and red <strong>light</strong> led intotreatment No. 2 to produce more leaves.In crop growth rate (CGR) red <strong>light</strong> had a negative <strong>effect</strong>on plant dry matter accumulation. To put it another way, red <strong>light</strong> caused treatment No. 2 to have alower CGR comparing to treatment No. 1. In relative growth rate (RGR) treatment No. 1 which wasexposed to normal sun<strong>light</strong> had a higher weight increase during growth period, comparing totreatment No. 2 which was exposed to red <strong>light</strong>. In net assimilation rate (NAR) treatment No.1(normal <strong>light</strong>) produces more dry matter comparing to the treatment No. 2 (red <strong>light</strong>); that is, normal<strong>light</strong> has a better photosynthetic efficiency in plant.Keywords: wheat, growth index, <strong>light</strong> <strong>levels</strong>INTRODUCTIONTriticum aestivum is the most important crop in the world. Extensive extent and high adaptation <strong>of</strong> this plantas well as its diverse consumptions in the human nutrition lead to presented as the most important cereal in theworld, especially in developing countries and it can provided 20 percent food resources <strong>of</strong> the world people (Farziet al, 2010). Light plays a key role in plant life, determining their photo-morphogenesis and photosynthesis rate(Avercheva et al., 2009). <strong>The</strong> sun emits the most <strong>of</strong> its radiation in the visible range, it covers the range <strong>of</strong>wavelength from 400-700nm (Kolawole, et al., 2010). <strong>The</strong> integration, quality, duration and intensity <strong>of</strong> red, far-red,blue, UV-A (320–500 nm) and UV-B (280–320 nm) <strong>light</strong> have a pr<strong>of</strong>ound influence on plants by triggeringphysiological reactions to control their growth and development (Briggs et al., 2001; Briggs and Olney, 2001;Clouse, 2001). LEDs are solid-state, long-lasting and durable sources <strong>of</strong> narrow-band <strong>light</strong> that can be used in avariety <strong>of</strong> horticultural and photo-biological applications (Stutte, 2009), including controlled research environments(Avercheva et al., 2009), <strong>light</strong>ing for tissue culture (Li et al., 2010) and supplemental and photoperiod <strong>light</strong>ing forgreenhouses (Morrow, 2008). Because <strong>of</strong> their potential to be implemented in dynamic <strong>light</strong>ing strategies to controlplant growth, development, physiological responses and production, it is important to learn more about theinfluence <strong>of</strong> <strong>light</strong> quality on these processes (Folta and Childers, 2008; Lefsrud et al., 2008; Massa et al., 2008).Receiving sun<strong>light</strong> by the plants and using that in plant biomass indicates the fundamental processes which controlthe crop yield (Purcell et al., 2002). Hence, one <strong>of</strong> old methods in assessing plants yield is to measure the received<strong>light</strong> by the plant and calculate the yield in its transformation into dry matter (Cadersa and Govinden, 1999).Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) reception method by the plant ghosting is among the main determining

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (12), 2358-2363, 2012RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLeaf Area Index (LAI)Leaf Area Index (LAI) represents the ratio between crops leaves area to the area leaves cover. Duringgrowth season, LAI is initially low and it gradually increases and it decreases, again. Results suggested that(Diagram 1) in treatment No. 1 which was under regular <strong>light</strong> the LAI is increased linearly. In the treatment No. 2which was exposed to red <strong>light</strong>, LAI had a linear growth in the first 3 weeks while LAI had a more ascending growthin the last 2 weeks. In the comparison between two treatments, treatment No. 2 had a higher growth subsequent tothe sampling. Hence, it could be said that, treatment No. 2 had a higher yield in absorbing sun<strong>light</strong> and red <strong>light</strong> ledinto treatment No. 2 to produce more leaves.Crop Growth Rate (CGR)Crop Growth Rate is the most meaningful word in analyzing growth in plant communities. CGR determinesthe dry matter accumulation in a time and land units in a plant community. CGR value is insignificant at thebeginning <strong>of</strong> season, while it subsequently increases and it decreases again by the end <strong>of</strong> the season. CGR valuein this test had an ascending growth, but in short period <strong>of</strong> time the growth was descending and it increased again.<strong>The</strong> decrease seems to be due to the research errors or thermal stress agent. Considering the above diagram(Diagram 2), it could be concluded that red <strong>light</strong> had a negative <strong>effect</strong> on plant dry matter accumulation. To put itanother way, red <strong>light</strong> caused treatment No. 2 to have a lower CGR comparing to treatment No. 1.Relative Growth Rate (RGR)RGR indicates the plant dry matter changes on initial dry weight in time unit. Subsequent to germination,RGR curve rises for a short period and has a decreasing trend over time. Hence, since the plant in this researchwas at the beginning <strong>of</strong> growth season, RGR must have an ascending trend. However, during the third and fourthsamples harvest, a decline was observed which seems to be due to the research error and thermal stress agent.Considering the above diagram (Diagram 3), it could be concluded that, treatment No. 1 which was exposed tonormal sun<strong>light</strong> had a higher weight increase during growth period, comparing to treatment No. 2 which wasexposed to red <strong>light</strong>.Net Assimilation Rate (NAR)Net Assimilation Rate is defined as the dry matter accumulation in time and leaf area units. If fact, NAR isthe amount <strong>of</strong> dry matter which is produced in leaf area unit and it indicates the leaves photosynthetic efficiency inplant communities. NAR has the highest value at the beginning <strong>of</strong> growth season, but, it increases by the increasein leaf area. NAR in both treatments <strong>of</strong> this research was ascending which seems to be due to the research errorand thermal stress agent that shows a descending trend in a short time. However, considering the results (Diagram4), it could be generally deduced that treatment No.1 (normal <strong>light</strong>) produces more dry matter comparing to thetreatment No. 2 (red <strong>light</strong>); that is, normal <strong>light</strong> has a better photosynthetic efficiency in plant.Leaf Area Ratio (LAR)LAR is the plant leaf surface to total plant weight ratio. In other words, LAR is the surface <strong>of</strong> photosynthetictissues to plant respiration tissues weight ratio. LAR could indicate a plant’s Full leaf and also plant’s investment onproducing leaves. Research results (Diagram 5) suggest that treatment No. 2 which was exposed to red <strong>light</strong> had ahigher leaf area during the growth period, comparing to treatment No. 1 which was exposed to normal <strong>light</strong>. It couldbe concluded that red <strong>light</strong> had stimulated treatment No. 2 to produce more leaves.Specific Leaf Area (SLA)Specific Leaf Area is defined as the leaf area to leaf dry weight. SLA indicates the leaf thickness and thehigher the SLA value, the thinner the leaf and vice versa. Research results (Diagram 6) suggests that SLA value isdescending and while treatment No. 2 was exposed to thermal stress, this decrease was higher. However, afterremoving stress, it was back to normal. Factors such as drought stress or intense <strong>light</strong> result in increase in leafthickness and consequently decrease in SLA. It could be generally concluded that, comparing to treatment No. 1(normal <strong>light</strong>), treatment No. 2 (red <strong>light</strong>) has thinner leaves. Hence, treatment No. 2 has a lower photosyntheticpower, comparing to treatment No. 1.2360

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (12), 2358-2363, 2012Leaf Weight Ratio (LWR)LWR is defined as the leaf dry weight to plant total dry weight ratio. Research results (Diagram 7) suggestthat, LWR in both treatments are almost similar. However, at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the growth season, LWR in treatmentNo. 2 is higher than treatment No. 1. This linear growth could be due to the red <strong>light</strong> <strong>effect</strong>.Burestall and Harris (1983) in a research on potato showed that <strong>light</strong> absorption percentage has a linearand curve-linear relation with soil coverage percentage and leaf area ratio, respectively; that is, the soil coveragepercentage and <strong>light</strong> absorption percentage are constant during growth season, but the relation between leaf arearatio and <strong>light</strong> absorption percentage differs in the beginning and at the end <strong>of</strong> the growth season (QasemiGol’azani et al., 1998). Green coverage percentage is a determining index in growth (Qasemi Gol’azani et al.,1998) and has practical advantages such as quick and non-destructive measurement which provides the possibility<strong>of</strong> observation for several times during growth period. Hence, it could be used as one <strong>of</strong> growth indices appropriatefor estimating crops potential yield in farms. In black eyed peas, a close correlation has been observed betweenyield and leaf area ratio during flowering last stages (Turk and Hall, 1980). High amount <strong>of</strong> green coveragepercentage especially during grain filling critical period could decrease water vaporization from soil surface andincrease water amount available for the plant and hence increase in the amount. <strong>The</strong>re is a direct positivecorrelation found Between <strong>light</strong> absorption ratio by the plant vegetation and some other growth indices such as leafarea ratio (Mwanamwenga et al., 1999) and soil coverage percentage (Burestall and Harris, 1983), so that, bymeasuring such indices, the <strong>light</strong> absorption by a plant could be estimated.2361

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (12), 2358-2363, 2012REFERENCESAsseng, so, Jamieson PD, Kimball B, pinter P, sayra K, Bowden JW, Howden SM, 2004. simulated wheat growth affected by rising temperature,in creased water deficit and elevated atmospheric coz. Field crops Res. 85: 85-102.Avercheva, O.V., Berkovich, Y.A., Erokhin, A.N., Zhigalova, T.V., Pogosyan, S.I., & Smolyanina, S.O, 2009. Growth and photosynthesis <strong>of</strong>Chinese cabbage plants grown under <strong>light</strong>-emitting diode-based <strong>light</strong> source. Russian Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant Physiology, 56, 14-21.http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1021443709010038Bonhomme R, 2000. Beware <strong>of</strong> comparing RUE values calculated from PAR vs. solar radation or observed vs. intercepted radiation. Field CropRes. 68: 247-252.Briggs, W.R., Beck, C.F., Cashmore, A.R., Christie, J.M., & Hunghes, J, 2001. <strong>The</strong> phototropin family <strong>of</strong> photoreceptors. Plant Cell, 13, 993-997.http://dx.doi.org/10.1105/tpc.13.5.993Briggs, W.R., & Olney, M.A, 2001. Photoreceptors in plant photomorphogenesis to date, five photochromes, two cryptochrome, one phototropinand one superchrome. Plant Physiology, 25, 85-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.125.1.85Burstall L, Harris PM, 1983. <strong>The</strong> estimation <strong>of</strong> percentage <strong>light</strong> interception from leaf area index and percentage ground cover in potatoes. J.Agric. Sci. 100: 241-244.Cadersa Y, Govinden N, 1999. Relation ship between. Canopy cover and <strong>light</strong> interception in potato in a tropical climate. Food and Agric. Res.Council, 137-144.Caliskan S, Ozakaya I, caliskan ME, Arslan M, 2008. the <strong>effect</strong>s <strong>of</strong> nitrogen and iron fertilization on growth, yield and fertilizer use efficiency <strong>of</strong>soybean in a Mediterranean type soil. Field crops Res. 108: 126-132.Clouse, S.D, 2001. Integration <strong>of</strong> <strong>light</strong> and brassinosteroid signals in etiolated seedling growth. Trends in Plant Science, 6, 443-445.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(01)02102-1.Egli DB, Guffy RG, Leggett JE, 1985. partitioning <strong>of</strong> assimilate between vegetative and reproductive growth in soybean. Agron. J. 77: 917-922.Ghasemi Golazany K, Movahedi M, Rahimzadeh Khoei F, Moghaddam M, 1998. Effects <strong>of</strong> waterdeficit on growth and yield <strong>of</strong> chickpea cultivarsatvarious densities. Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Science, Volume 7, Number 3 and 4. Page 42-17.Farzi, A. and B. Shekari Mosta'li Bigloo, 2010. Evaluation <strong>of</strong> genetic diversity <strong>of</strong> wheat lines by related traits to drought tolerance. <strong>The</strong> 11thIranian Congress <strong>of</strong> Agronomy Science and Plant Breeding, pp: 155-157.Folta, K.M., & Childers, K.S, 2008. Light as a growth regulator: controlling plant biology with narrow-bandwidth solid-state <strong>light</strong>ing systems.HortScience, 43, 1957-1964. http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/7/1957.fullHusain MM, Hill GD, Gallagher JN, 1988. <strong>The</strong> response <strong>of</strong> field beans to irrigation and sowing date. II. Growth and development in relation toyield Agri. Sci. camb. 3: 233- 254.Kaushal T, onda M, Ito S, Yamazaki A, Fujikake, ohtake N, sueyoshi K, Takahashi Y, ohyama T, 2006. Effect <strong>of</strong> placement <strong>of</strong> show- releaseFertilizer applied at <strong>different</strong> rates on growth, N. Fixation and yield <strong>of</strong> soybean. J. Agronomy and crop science, 192: 417-426.Kolawole, O. M., Kayode, R. M. O., & Aina, J, 2010. <strong>The</strong> drying <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> varying <strong>light</strong> frequencies on the proximate and microbial composition <strong>of</strong>tomato. Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Science, 2, 214-224. http://www.ccsenet.org/jas.Lefsrud, M.G., Kopsell, D.A., & Sams, C.E, 2008. Irradiance from distinct wavelength <strong>light</strong>-emitting diodes affect secondary metabolites in Kale.HortScience, 43, 2243-2244. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_planpubs/6.Li, H. M., Xu, Z. G., & Tang, C. M, 2010. Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>light</strong>-emitting diodes on growth and morphogenesis <strong>of</strong> upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)plantlets in vitro. Plant Cell Tissue Orgure Culture, 103, 155–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11240-010-9763-zLind quist JL, Arkebauer TJ, walters DT, cassman KG, Dobermann A, 2005. Maize radiation use efficiency under optimal growth condition.Agron. J. 97: 72-78.Massa, G.D., Kim, H.H., Wheeler, R.M., & Mitchell, C.A, 2008. Plant productivity in response to LED <strong>light</strong>ing. HortScience, 43, 1951–1956.http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/7/1951.full.Mohammed Gh, Golazany Ghasemi K, Jvanshyr A, Moghaddam M, 2006. Effect <strong>of</strong> water restriction on the performance <strong>of</strong> pea cultivars.Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, the tenth year, Number 2, Pages 119-109.Morrow, R.C, 2008. LED Lighting in Horticulture. HortScience, 43, 1947-1950. http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/7/1947.full.2362

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (12), 2358-2363, 2012Mwanamwenge J, Joss SP, siddique KHM, cocks PS, 1999. Effects <strong>of</strong> water stress during floral initiation, flowering and podding on the growthand yield <strong>of</strong> faba bean. European J. Agron. 11: 1-11.Purcell LC, Ball RA, Reaper JD, vories ED, 2002. Radiation use efficiency and biomass production in soybean at <strong>different</strong> plant populationdensities. Crop sci. 42: 172-177.Schussler JR, Westgate ME, 1991. Maize kernel set at low water potential: I. Sensitivity to reduce assimilates during early kernel growth. CropSci. 31:1189-1195.Shafiq M, Rashed M, Mahalati (H), Nassiri M, 2006. <strong>The</strong> <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> cattle on cotton yield and yield components <strong>of</strong> soybean plants at <strong>different</strong>densities and <strong>different</strong> planting dates. Iranian Agricultural Research magazine. Volume 4. N1. Page 71-81.Stewart DW, Costa C, Dwyer LM, smith DL, Hamilton RI, Ma BL, 2003. canopy structure <strong>light</strong> interception, and photosynthesis in maze. Agron.J. 95: 1465.Stutte, G.W., Edney, S., & Skerritt, T, 2009. Photoregulation <strong>of</strong> bioprotectant content <strong>of</strong> red leaf lettuce with <strong>light</strong>-emitting diodes. HortScience,44, 79-82. http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/44/1/79.full.Turk KJ, Hall AE, 1980. Drought adaption <strong>of</strong> cowpea, III. Influence <strong>of</strong> drought on plant growth and relations with seed yield Agron. J. 72: 428-433.Wolf J, Van oijen M, kempenear C, 2002. Analysis <strong>of</strong> the experimental variability in wheat response to elevated coz and temperature. Agric. Eco.Env. 93: 227-247.Yano T, Aydin M, Haragu chi T, 2007. Impact <strong>of</strong> climate change on irrigation demand and crop growth in a Mediterranean environment <strong>of</strong>Turkey. Sensors, 7: 2297-2315.2363