» Articles » PMID: 39835492

Biofeedback Control of Photosynthetic Lighting Using Real-time Monitoring of Leaf Chlorophyll Fluorescence

Overview
Journal Physiol Plant
Date 2025 Jan 21
PMID 39835492
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Optimizing photosynthetic lighting is essential for maximizing crop production and minimizing electricity costs in controlled environment agriculture (CEA). Traditional lighting methods often neglect the impact of environmental factors, crop type, and light acclimation on photosynthetic efficiency. To address this, a chlorophyll fluorescence-based biofeedback system was developed to adjust light-emitting diode (LED) intensity based on real-time plant responses, rather than using a fixed photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). This study used the biofeedback system to maintain a range of target quantum yield of photosystem II (Φ) and electron transport rate (ETR) values and to examine if the adjustment logic (Φ or ETR-based) and crop type influence LED light intensity. The system was tested in a growth chamber with lettuce (Lactuca sativa) 'Green Towers' and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) 'Diva' to maintain six ETR levels (30, 50, 70, 90, 110, 130 μmol·m·s) and five Φ levels (0.65, 0.675, 0.7, 0.725, 0.75) during a 16-hour photoperiod. The ETR-based biofeedback quickly stabilized the target ETR within 30-45 minutes, whereas the Φ-based system needed more time. The system adjusted light intensities according to target values, acclimation status, and crop-specific responses. For example, to maintain a target ETR of 130 μmol·m·s, the gradual increase in Φ over time due to light acclimation allowed the required PPFD to decrease by 35 μmol·m·s. Lettuce showed higher photosynthetic efficiency and lower heat dissipation than cucumber, leading to higher PPFD adjustments for lettuce. This biofeedback system effectively controls LED light, optimizing photosynthetic efficiency and potentially reducing lighting costs.

Citing Articles

Biofeedback control of photosynthetic lighting using real-time monitoring of leaf chlorophyll fluorescence.

Nam S, van Iersel M, Ferrarezi R Physiol Plant. 2025; 177(1):e70073.

PMID: 39835492 PMC: 11748110. DOI: 10.1111/ppl.70073.

References
1.
Jayalath T, van Iersel M . Canopy Size and Light Use Efficiency Explain Growth Differences between Lettuce and Mizuna in Vertical Farms. Plants (Basel). 2021; 10(4). PMC: 8067451. DOI: 10.3390/plants10040704. View

2.
Mathur S, Agrawal D, Jajoo A . Photosynthesis: response to high temperature stress. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2014; 137:116-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2014.01.010. View

3.
Tennessen D, Bula R, Sharkey T . Efficiency of photosynthesis in continuous and pulsed light emitting diode irradiation. Photosynth Res. 2013; 44(3):261-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF00048599. View

4.
Oberhuber W, Edwards G . Temperature Dependence of the Linkage of Quantum Yield of Photosystem II to CO2 Fixation in C4 and C3 Plants. Plant Physiol. 1993; 101(2):507-512. PMC: 160598. DOI: 10.1104/pp.101.2.507. View

5.
Muller P, Li X, Niyogi K . Non-photochemical quenching. A response to excess light energy. Plant Physiol. 2001; 125(4):1558-66. PMC: 1539381. DOI: 10.1104/pp.125.4.1558. View