Content uploaded by Raisa Aone Marciales Cabahug
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raisa Aone Marciales Cabahug on Jan 24, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9 ISSN 1225-5009(Print)
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.11623/frj.2016.24.1.1 ISSN 2287-772X(Online)
www.ijfs.org
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effects of Supplementary Lighting Intensity and Duration on
Hydroponically Grown Crassulaceae Species
Sang Yong Nam
1,2
, Hyun Seok Lee
1
, Soon-Yil Soh
1, 2
, and Raisa Aone M. Cabahug
1, 2
*
1
Department of Environmental Horticulture, Sahmyook University, Seoul 01795, Korea
2
Natural Science Research Institute, Sahmyook University, Seoul 01795, Korea
Received 18 February 2016; Revised 1 March 2016; Accepted 15 March 2016
Copyright © 2016 by The Korean Society for Floricultural Science
Abstract This study was conducted to determine the effects
of supplementary lighting intensity and duration on selected
Cassulaceae species grown in a hydroponic system. Five
subfamilies in Crassulaceae with corresponding species
were chosen as experimental units namely Sedeveria ‘Leti-
zia’, Sedum ‘Sun Red’, Crassula rupestris, Echeveria
‘Momotaro’, and Graptoveria opalina. Light duration (3 and
6 hour) and intensity (4,000 lux or 60 µmol
•
m
−2
•
s
−1
and
8,000 lux or 120 µmol
•
m
−2
•
s
−1
), and their combinations
served as factors which were replicated twice. Results
revealed that the use of supplementary lighting using LED
fixtures had influenced selected species under Crassu-
laceae. The use of three hours supplementary lighting
under low light intensity had statistically similar results with
those of the control S. letizia, C. rupestris and G. opalina in
particular parameters. Meanwhile, succulents under six-hour
with high intensity condition grew well, compared to species
S. letizia, C. rupestris and E. ‘Momotaro,’ demonstrating
that the data was significantly different. Interestingly, there
were no statistical significant differences between species C.
rupestris and the control regardless of change of variables
(duration and intensity) in all parameters.
Additional key words: Crassula, hydroponics, light exposure,
lux value, Succulents, supplemental light
Introduction
Succulents are strategically tried plants that has the
capability to live in arid environment as well as extreme
habitats. These plants are related to about 12,500 species
from 70 flowering plant families with remarkable variations in
stem and leaf structure, and their flowers (Nyffeler et al.
2008). The third largest family of succulents is the
Crassulacae consisting of plants that have a wide range of
habitat adaptation and temperature tolerance. These
succulents are popularly known to be called as the
‘
stonecrop
’
and
‘
houseleek
’
family with a broadcast appeal
for growers, hobbyists and collectors (Rowley 1978; Sevilla et
al. 2012). Within this huge family, several subfamilies are
popularly known including Sedeveria, Sedum, Crassula,
Echeveria, and Graptopetalum. They come in variety of
morphological structures and their leaves evidently create a
certain unique growth pattern.
Due to busy lifestyles of the new generation, there is a huge
demand for plants that can survive indoors with minimum
maintenance and watering needs. To add aesthetic beauty
and greens inside their homes and other establishments, live
plants are the most natural and beautiful decorations.
Attention of enthusiasts, businessmen and plant collectors
have been attracted due to the bizarre growth-forms and
attractive flowers that requires relatively minimum watering
and care, and can be able to survive in indoors (Fischer and
Schaufler 1981) and extreme outdoor conditions for
landscapes, of which can be found in the characteristics of
succulent plants (Oldfield 1997).
Succulents are propagated and cultivated in greenhouses
to meet demands for landscaping, home decors and, other
related products, and purposes. Production during other
season proves to be more difficult during colder conditions as
well as those months where there are shorter days.
Although, hydroponics has been used intensively to grow
fruits, vegetables and some ornamentals (Admane and
Sardare 2013), it has not been normally used as a technique
to improve quality and growth of succulents. The use of
hydroponics also allows the isolation of diseases or insect
pests usually found in soil, direct control over the rhizosphere,
increased planting distance, maximizing use of land area,
efficient use of water and nutrients, ease in cleaning, no
*Corresponding author: Raisa Aone M. Cabahug
Tel: +82-2-339-1739
E-mail: raisaaone@gmail.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0863-4721
Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9 2
www.ijfs.org
cultivation needed, transplanting is easy and ultimately,
achieve highest possible yields or produce more number of
plants (Rorabaugh 2014).
On the other hand, this technology is only limited to high
economic valued crops and is expensive in operation (Resh
1983). Other growers believed that hydroponically growing
succulents may exhibit leaf drop or defoliation since there is
plenty absorption of water since succulents are already
efficient in water storage. The issue is not with the use of
water but the extent and efficiency of nutrient absorption.
Technologists have innovated and invented several
materials that may be able to solve certain problems in
greenhouses or open cultivation of certain crops for mass
production. Plant responses to environment are also
influenced by various factors including both environment and
cultural practices coupled with the innate genetic characteristic
of crops (Hartmann and Kester 1975). Among environmental
factors include light, temperature and nutrition which may also
be enhanced through cultural practices to exemplify better
quality of plant growth. Light may have both quantity, which
may be distinguished with intensity and duration, and quality,
which differs what type of light and/or wavelengths are
exposed to crops (Dorais 2003).
Supplemental lighting has been a recognized efficient
strategy to maintain, optimize and provide photosynthetic
requirement of long-day plants with respect to photoperiodism.
It guarantees a better opportunity to meet market demands
and improve plant growth and quality (Gottdenker et al. 2010).
Among quality of lighting, the choice between the types of
light source is in constant research and there are several
studies that reported the use of LEDs in greenhouses enable
efficient and affordable lighting system compared to
conventional incandescent lighting (Kosal et al. 2015) as well
as having long lifespans with tremendous control of spectra
distributions (Llewellyn et al. 2015).
Generally, LEDs come in combination of most electrically
efficient colors including blue, red and cool white. These
provide precision delivery of photons and result studies
indicated that they are more cost effective option for
supplementary lighting in greenhouses (Nelson 2014). Studies
of Li et al. (2016) reported that the use of low-cost and long-
living light emitting diode was a good artificial light source to
explore the effects of supplementary lighting during dark
period especially during the winter on the vegetative
characteristics, early yield and physiology of plants grown in a
greenhouse without heating. According to Jovanic et al.
(2006), indoor plants are often classified on the light
necessary for growth they may be low (200 ft-c or 2,000 lux),
medium (500 ft-c or 5,000 lux), high (750 ft-c or 7,500 lux) and
very high (1,000 ft-c or 10,000 lux).
Thus, this study was conducted in order to determine the
effects of light intensity and duration as supplementary lighting
using LED fixtures on selected Crassulaceae succulent
species grown in a hydroponic system.
Materials and Methods
Time and location of study
The study was conducted for a duration of 4 weeks within
the months of November to December 2015 of which short
days ranges only lasts for around ten (10) hours from 8 : 00
o
’
clock in the morning to 5 o
’
clock in the afternoon. The
selected Crassulaceae species, in general, are known to be
very responsive or sensitive to its environment and was
selected as the species to serve as the experimental unit.
Experimental design
The study was done in a Factorial Arrangement in
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with two factors
which includes light duration and intensity. Light duration
served as Factor A with 13 and 16 hours of light exposure
comprising of three and six hours of supplementary light
duration and 10 hours of natural sunlight exposure. Light
intensity served as Factor B with a measured value of 4,000
lux representing low intensity value (60
µ
mol
•
m
−
2
•
s
−
1
) and
8,000 lux as a high intensity value (120
µ
mol
•
m
−
2
•
s
−
1
).
Treatments were replicated twice with a total of five
treatments including the Control (with no supplementary
lighting or having 10 hours of natural light).
Planting materials
Selected species under the Crassula Family were chosen
with distinct color variation. There were five selected species
from different subfamilies of Crassulaceae. These are the
following species that were selected for the study as
experimental units namely: Sedeveria letizia, Sedum
‘
Sun
Red
’
, Tom Thumb (Crassula rupestris), Echeveria
‘
Momotaro
’
and, Graptoveria opalina.
Treatment application and set-up
Succulent roots were washed with running water to remove
soil contaminants and debris on previous medium. Roots
were wrapped with non-woven fabric as rooting medium.
Succulents were placed in trays in an upright position. Point of
placements were made sure to have more or less the same
lux value. Succulents were grown under an Ebb-and-Flow
hydroponic system. Korean Standard nutrient solution with an
average EC of 2.0 mS
•
cm
−
2
and the temperature was
3Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9
www.ijfs.org
maintained 10
o
C or higher. Each hydroponic reservoir had
100 L of prepared solution. Feeding time was only twice a day
with a 1-hour ebb between 8 am to 9 am and five pm to six
pm. Home light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures were used as
artificial lights. Two bulbs with a distance of 12 inches from
each other and about 20 inches from the succulents were
placed in the hydroponic bed frames creating 4,000 lux value,
on the other hand four bulbs were used with the same
distance forming a rhombus vortex pattern creating twice the
amount or 8,000 lux value. Supplemental light fixtures were
installed with timers to automatically coordinate proper lighting
duration or three hours and six hours.
Data gathered
Plant height, diameter, visual quality score and color
reading were parameters gathered weekly. The visual quality
score was based on ornamental hedonic scale which included
indicating and taking note of changes appearing as affected
by light. The hedonic scale represents numbers 1-5 having
described as dead, fair but not saleable, fair and saleable,
good and excellent, respectively. The color reading was
gathered using the Konica Minolta Spectrophotometer
CM2600d following the CIELAB which makes use of the L
*
a
*
b
*
color space to indicate lightness, hue and saturation of colors.
Care and management
Experimental conditions the nutrient solution was checked
daily to evaluate the level of EC, pH and the temperature. Since
hydroponic beds were adjacent to one another, thick black
curtains were placed in between these beds to ensure proper
responses of succulents to their respective supplementary
lighting treatments. The environmental temperature was
maintained at 15
o
C.
Results and Discussion
Sedeveria
‘
letizia
’
S.
‘
letizia
’
, acquired from an Italian collection (Sedum
cuspidatum
×
Echeveria setosa var. ciliate), belongs to
subfamily Sedoidae. Plants under this group are well-known
for being in
‘
splits
’
or having another included within them.
They are drought tolerant species and leaf color may change
depending on the shading or lighting (Lee and Kim 2008;
Rowley 1987). Results of the analysis revealed that
supplemental lighting significantly affected S. Letizia height,
diameter, and *b among parameters as shown on Table 1.
Among treatment combinations (Fig. 1), plants under three
hours of supplementary lighting with 8000 lux had tallest
plants with 68.42 mm which were comparable to both six
hours light duration regardless of intensity with 62.02 mm and
62.28 mm. However, Control and three hours supplemental
light and low intensity gave the shortest plants which did not
significantly differ from each other with 56.07 mm and
60.73 mm, respectively.
Tab l e 1 .
Effects of supplemental lighting duration and intensity on hydroponically grown S. letizia.
Supplemental
Lighting
Height
(mm)
Diameter
(mm) VQR Color Reading
L
*
a
*
b
*
Control 56.07 b
z
52.35 b 3.38 35.62
−
6.51 18.89 a
3 hrs + 4000 lx 60.73 b 50.52 b 3.38 19.66
−
5.31 19.05 a
3 hrs + 8000 lx 68.42 a 59.03 a 3.38 20.20
−
7.52 19.96 a
6 hrs + 4000 lx 62.01 ab 49.87 b 3.13 20.31
−
4.87 17.54 a
6 hrs + 8000 lx 62.28 ab 53.30 ab 3.38 21.18
−
4.66 14.10 b
y
F-Test
∗∗ ∗
NS NS NS
∗∗
z
Means separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test at P=0.05.
y
NS, *, **, Non-Significant or significant at P=0.05 or 0.01, respectively.
Fig. 1.
Selected Crassulaceae species. A: Sedeveria
‘
letizia
’
, B: Sedum
‘
Sun Red
’
, C: Crassula rupestris, D: Echeveria
‘
Momotaro
’
, E:
Graptoveria opalina.
Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9 4
www.ijfs.org
Substantial change may be observed in photosynthesizing
plants as to their chloroplast movement leading to differential
height of plants. This movement may be affected by the
amount of light absorbed. Low photo lux values which
saturate the light responses in photosynthesis, chloroplasts
tends to gather at the cell surfaces parallel to the plane of the
leaf and perpendicular to the incident light which causes the
plant to bend down. However, at maximum or higher lux
value, the movement of the chloroplasts are perpendicular
and parallel to the indecent light creating an upright position
(Taiz and Zeiger 1991).
Diameter had similar results of that of height, wherein the
highest diameter was recorded from plants grown in 3 hours
supplementary lighting with high intensity value of 59.03 which
were comparable to those of 6 hours and high intensity value
of 53.30.
Based on the color reading, supplementary lighting did not
significantly affect the L
*
and a
*
values of the color reading.
However, it may be noted that the L
*
value had a high
difference between treatments having Control with 35.62
indicating a lightness of the color spectrum.
This indicated that color appears to be bland compared to
those treated with supplementary lighting ranging from 19.66-
21.18. Studies of Park et al. (2013) revealed that the use of
supplementary lighting significantly increased chlorophyll
content in S. wallisii. Chlorophyll absorbs mist of the light for
the plant as a source of energy through photosynthesis and
thus increasing the green pigmentation of foliage (Adams and
Early 2004).
On the other hand, b
*
values were highly affected by
treatments. Results revealed that six hours of high intensity
value had darker hues with 14.10 while the rest of the
treatments did not significantly differ from each other.
Sedum
‘
sun red
’
‘
Sun Red
’
is a new developed hybrid which has increase
quality when red colors are evident (Fig. 2). This flaunty red-
colored succulent is a member of the Sedum subgroup. They
are often being studied as plants used for green roofing due
to their fire prevention characteristics and dry resistance
Fig. 2.
Hydroponically grown S. letizia succulents as influenced by combination of supplementary lightning duration and intensity: A: 4,000
lux and 3 hours, B: 8,000 lux and 3 hours, C: 4,000 lux and 6 hours, D: 8,000 lux and 6 hours.
Tab l e 2 .
Effects of supplemental lighting duration and intensity on hydroponically grown Sedum
‘
Sun Red
’
.
Supplemental
Lighting Height Diameter VQR Color Reading
L
*
a
*
b
*
Control 099.74 82.20 03.50 b
z
26.37 01.87 b 15.81
3 hrs + 4000 lx 109.37 80.94 4.13 a 31.42 08.29 a 15.28
3 hrs + 8000 lx 120.98 84.20 4.38 a 23.56 10.95 a 13.29
6hrs+4000lx 099.21 85.64 4.13 a 31.10 005.19 ab 15.61
6 hrs + 8000 lx 106.49 80.36 4.50 a 23.51 08.09 a 14.45
y
F-Test NS NS
**
NS
*
NS
z
Means separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test at P=0.05.
y
NS, *, **, Non-Significant or significant at P=0.05 or 0.01, respectively.
5Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9
www.ijfs.org
tolerance compared to other plants, it has a low transpiration
value during the day (Al-Busaidi et al. 2010; Zinkan 2010).
Data on the response of
‘
Sun Red
’
to supplementary lighting
are shown on Table 2.
Results revealed that the plant height and diameter of this
species were not significantly affected. However, its visual
quality rating was found to be highly affected by supplementary
lighting. Among treatments, plants grown in supplementary
lighting regardless of duration and intensity had significantly
affected the visual score of the succulent while those of the
Control had the lowest VQR rating of 3.50 described as good.
The use of poor lighting especially during winter affected the
growth of Sun Red succulents.
Results of Park et al. (2013) on the study of foliage plants
that ornamental value deteriorates when plants are exposed
in poor light conditions and also inhibits growth. This will lead
to lower quality of aesthetic worth of succulents. According to
researches of Lopez (2013), the use of supplementary lighting
in green houses in months of winter or months approaching
winter could lead to the increase of daily light integral which
affects both quality and yield depending on which crop. These
also include rooting, thicker stems and reduction of defoliation.
Studies of Hicklenton (1989) also revealed that the use of
supplementary lighting provided increased quality and
vegetative growth on root and shoot dry weight and increased
leaf area at the end of its vegetative stage while at maturity, the
use of supplemental lighting in the early stage gave significant
improvement on the flower and vegetative dry weight, stem
length, leaf area and number of flowers.
Among color reading data, only a
*
was significantly affected
by the treatments. Results revealed that those succulents
treated with supplemental lighting were significantly similar
with each other except for those with the Control with 1.89
indicating a low hue towards red color. Thus, the use of
supplemental lighting have significantly increased the red
hues of Sun Red succulent variety.
These results were also observed in the studies of Koksal
et al. (2015) of Viola curmota. It was found that the use of
supplementary LED lighting significantly affected all vegetative
parameters including root and shoot fresh weight and ratio,
leaf number, flower number and quality of plants compared to
those of the control. The use of LED lighting had more than
52% growth rate compared to plants which were deprived of
supplemental lighting regardless of duration and intensity.
Crassula rupestris
Also known as Tom Thumb, C. rupestris or rosary plants
due to the formation of leaves on the stem which are small
globular to triangular leaves whirling around the center of
stem with multiple branches from the center of the main stem.
They are capable of taking partly shady areas to full sun. In
the event of excess light, the plant gives of a seemingly red
tinge to the edge of its leaves or pale pink (Zinkan 2010). This
succulent belongs to the Crassula subgroup where plants
classified to this group are capable of tolerating wide range of
environments (Jones 2011). Data on the effects of supplemental
lighting on hydroponically grown C. rupestris are shown on
Table 3.
Plant height and diameter were not significantly affected by
parameters (Fig. 3). This may be due to the fact that this
species have a wide range of adoptability to change in
environment especially on its range of areas to grow in terms
of lighting. However, visual quality score was highly affected
by the treatments.
Among treatments, those with the highest visual score was
attained by those grown under the longest supplementary
hours and high intensity with 4.75 described as excellent. In
the study of Park et al. (2013) the use of a 12 hour period on
the Hedera helix plant significantly increased plant height,
node number and its leaf number and length were found
greatest under this light exposure compared to those of 0, 4,
and 8.
Based on the color reading parameter, hues a
*
and b
*
were significantly affected by supplementary lightning duration
and intensity. Lower hues a
*
were observed from succulents
treated with six hours and high intensity value with
−
5.94
Tab l e 3 .
Effects of supplemental lighting duration and intensity hydroponically grown C. rupestris.
Supplemental
Lighting Height Diameter VQR Color Reading
L
*
a
*
b
*
Control 84.69 15.67 3.75 b
z
38.39
−
7.99 a 21.75 ab
3 hrs + 4000 lx 80.97 15.07 4.37 ab 41.17
−
8.17 a 22.81 b
3 hrs + 8000 lx 83.06 14.05 3.75 b 34.52
−
6.43 ab 20.57 ab
6 hrs + 4000 lx 79.69 15.25 3.75 b 36.41
−
7.11 ab 22.42 ab
6 hrs + 8000 lx 82.02 14.87 4.75 a 32.55
−
5.94 b 18.44 b
y
F-Test NS NS
**
NS
**
z
Means separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test at P=0.05.
y
NS, *, **, Non-Significant or significant at P=0.05 or 0.01, respectively.
Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9 6
www.ijfs.org
indicating a darker shade of green color while those exposed
to lower light duration and intensity value, including the
Control, had the highest a
*
value with 8.17 and 7.99,
respectively which did not significantly differ from each other.
Tom Thumb with the use of higher light intensity and duration is
able to produce a more striking green color compared to those
of the control which led to a higher rate on the visual score.
Succulent plants which were exposed to six hours with high
intensity value had the lowest hue value of 18.44 which
significantly differed from the rest of the treatments. A low hue
b
*
indicates a position near that of red shades. Accordingly,
with the increase of light, Tom Thumb would produce visible
red to light pink edges of its leaf. Results of the study showed
that the higher the intensity and longer the duration of
supplementary lighting using LED fixtures, this specific
succulent species increased the visible production of its
unique light pink to red edge color, thus scoring a high rating
with its visual score as well.
Echeveria
‘
momotaro
’
‘
Momotaro
’
belongs to the subgroup Echeverioideae or
also known as Echeveria which are highly valued for their
colors and amazing variations with a stunning leaf that come
in attractive rosettes. Some variations include development of
red colors on edges depending on light reception (Low 2007).
Results of the effects of supplementary lighting of E.
‘
Momotaro
’
is found on Table 4.
Results revealed that plant diameter was affected by
supplemental lighting (Fig. 4). The widest diameter was
observed by succulents exposed with six hours and highest
value of intensity of supplemental lighting (80.50 mm). As the
diameter of the leaves increased the uprightness of
succulents gave an extra visual quality point to the plant. This
result was consistently seen with the visual score which was
highly affected by the treatments and was followed by those
that were exposed to supplemental lighting as compared to a
low visual score to those of the Control.
Among color reading values, a
*
was significantly influenced
Fig. 3.
Hydroponically grown Sedum
‘
Sun Red
’
succulents as influenced by combination of supplementary lightning duration and intensity:
A
: 4,000 lux and 3 hours, B: 8,000 lux and 3 hours, C: 4,000 lux and 6 hours, D: 8,000 lux and 6 hours.
Tab l e 4 .
Effects of supplemental lighting duration and intensity hydroponically grown E.
‘
Momotaro
’.
Supplemental
Lighting Height Diameter VQR Color Reading
L
*
a
*
b
*
Control 31.84 72.21 b
z
3.38 b 22.67
−
0.60 b 3.06
3 hrs + 4000 lx 37.00 74.14 ab 4.50 ab 19.52
−
0.54 b 2.65
3 hrs + 8000 lx 36.28 72.57 ab 4.63 ab 19.88
−
0.75 b 3.52
6 hrs + 4000 lx 34.51 68.06 b 4.38 b 22.08 01.42 a 2.96
6 hrs + 8000 lx 38.05 80.50 a 4.88 a 17.34
−
1.05 b 3.13
y
F-Test NS
***
NS
*
NS
z
Means separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test at P=0.05.
y
NS, *, **, Non-Significant or significant at P=0.05 or 0.01, respectively.
7Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9
www.ijfs.org
by supplemental lighting. The highest a
*
value was found in
plants exposed to six hours + 4000 lux with 1.42 indicating a
nearness to reddish hues.
Fig. 4.
Hydroponically grown C. rupestris succulents as influenced by combination of supplementary lightning duration and intensity: A:
4,000 lux and 3 hours, B: 8,000 lux and 3 hours, C: 4,000 lux and 6 hours, D: 8,000 lux and 6 hours.
Tab l e 5 .
Effects of supplemental lighting duration and intensity hydroponically grown G. op al i na
Supplemental
Lighting Height Diameter VQR Color Reading
L
*
a
*
b
*
Control 68.96 133.29 a
z
4.00 37.22 a
z
−
2.10 3.88
3 hrs + 4000 lx 75.34 138.38 a 4.13 23.40 b
−
2.94 2.50
3 hrs + 8000 lx 67.92 115.50 b 4.50 24.27 b
−
1.25 3.30
6 hrs + 4000 lx 70.34 117.19 b 4.38 24.90 b
−
1.68 1.60
6 hrs + 8000 lx 74.48 125.81 ab 4.00 25.00 b
−
1.75 3.19
y
F-Test NS
** * *
NS NS
z
Means separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test at P=0.05.
y
NS, *, **, Non-Significant or significant at P=0.05 or 0.01, respectively.
Fig. 5.
Hydroponically grown E.
‘
Momorato
’
succulents as influenced by combination of supplementary lightning duration and intensity: A:
4,000 lux and 3 hours, B: 8,000 lux and 3 hours, C: 4,000 lux and 6 hours, D: 8,000 lux and 6 hours.
Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9 8
www.ijfs.org
Graptoveria opalina.
Graptoverias are hybrid crosses between Graptopetalum
and Echeveria in which G. opalina is classified with. They are
sun-loving succulents that changes their leaf opening based
on the perception and absorption of light (Graham 1987;
Zinkan 2010). Presented on Table 5 is the response of G.
opalina on the supplemental lighting duration and intensity.
Diameter was highly affected by supplemental lighting
duration and intensity. Among treatments those that were
exposed to no lighting (Control) and with three hours + 4000 lux
had the largest diameter with 133.29 mm and 138.38 mm
which did not significantly differ from each other. All succulents
with supplemental lighting, aside from the minimal exposure of
duration and intensity, had statistically similar diameter ranging
from 125.81 mm-115.50 mm. Opening and widening of
diameter is not ideal with this species. Once there is a larger
opening, the color of the succulent fades and leaving it with
spaces and forming loose rosette (Fig. 5).
Among color reading data, lightness (L
*
) was highly affected
by supplemental lighting. Similar results were observed as to
there is a darker expression of colors when succulents were
exposed to supplementary lighting. Treatments did not
significantly differ from each other except those that were
treated with no light (Control) which had the highest lightness
of 37.22 indicating a faded color.
Based on the results of the study, recommended use of the
following light intensity for selected succulent species to
enhance growth performance and quality are three hours +
8000 lux for S. letizia, six hours + 8000 lux for C. rupestris and
E.
‘
Momotaro
’
and G. o pa li n a.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by
‘
Succulents Export
Innovation Model Development towards Chinese Market
(514006-03-1-HD040)
’
, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affair and Sahmyook University Research Fund.
References
Admane SV, Sardare MD (2013) A review on plant without soil
hydroponics. Intern J Res in Engr and Technol (IJRET)
2:298-309
Adams CR, Early MP (2004) Principle of horticulture. 4
th
ed,
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA
Al-Busaidi A, Yamamoto T, Tanak S, Moritani S (2010)
Evapotranspiration of succulent plant (Sedum aizoon var.
floibundum), pp 241-257 In: Alexandris S (ed) Evapotranspiration
an overview. http://www.intechopen.com/books/evapotranspiration-
an-overview/evaptranspiration-of-succulent-plant-sedum-
aizoonvar-floibundum-.pdf
Brazaityte A, Duchovskis P, Urbonaviciute A, Samuoliene G,
Jankauskiene J, Sakalauskaite K, Sabajeviene G, Siratautas R,
Novickovas A (2010) The effect of light-emitting diodes on the
growth of tomato transplants. Zembirdyste-Agri J 97:89-98
Chung JW, Park HB, Lee KK, Park IT, Nam SY (2012) The effect of
supplementary lighting on the quality of succulent plants and
grafter cactus in winter season. Korean J Hort Sci Technol
30:156 (Abstr)
Dorais M (2003) The use of supplemental lighting for vegetable
crop production: light intensity, crop response, nutrition, crop
management, cultural practices. Canadian Greenhouse
Conference, October 9, 2003, Toronto, Ontario. http://www.
agrireseau.qc.ca/legumesdeserre/Documents/CGC-
Dorais2003fin2.pdf/
Fischer CC, Schaufler EF (1981) Artificial Lighting for decorative plants.
http://www.gardening.cornell.edu/houseplants/pdf/artificiallighting/pdf
Gottdenker J, Giacomelli G, Durner E (2010) Supplemental lighting
Fig.
6.
Hydroponically grown G. opalina succulents as influenced by combination of supplementary lightning duration and intensity: A: 4,000 lux and
3 hours, B: 8,000 lux and 3 hours, C: 4,000 lux and 6 hours, D: 8,000 lux and 6 hours.
9Flower Res. J. (2016) 24(1):1-9
www.ijfs.org
strategy for greenhouse strawberry production. http://
ag.arizona.edu/ceac/sites/ag.arizona.edu.ceac/files/
SpainISHSJosashpap.pdf
Graham V (1987) Growing succulent plants including cacti. Timber
Press. Portland, Oregon, USA
Hartmann H, Kester D (1975) Plant propagation principles and
practices. 3rd ed, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
USA
Hicklenton P (1988) Effects of supplementary lighting and root-zone
temperature on the growth of chrysanthemums in nutrient film.
Can J Plant Sci 69:585-590
Jones LA (2011) Anatomical adaptations of four Crassula species to
water availability. Advance Access Publication, Bath, UK 4:13-22
Kobayashi K, Amore T, Lazaro M (2013) Light-emitting diodes
(LEDs) for miniature hydroponic lettuce. Opt Photon Sci Res J
2:74-77
Kosal N, Incesu M, Teke A (2015) Supplemental LED lightning
increases pansy growth. Horti Brasil 33:428-433
Lee, JS, Kim HJ (2008) Effect of different light intensities on growth
and lead color changes of sedum spp. The First Asian
Horticulture Congress (AHC 2008) pp 66-67
Llewellyn D, Vinson K, Zheng Y (2015) LED superior to HPS cut gerbera
production. http://CeeGreen_Website_UniGuelph_copy_v1.pdf
Lopez R (2013) Understanding the differences between
photoperiodic and supplemental lighting. http://leds.htr.msu.edu/
assets/Uploads/Photoperiodic-and-supplemental-lighting.pdf
Low JE (2007) The echeverias. International Crassulaceae Network
18:27
Nelson J (2014) Economic analysis of greenhouse lighting: light
emitting diodes vs. intensity discharge fixtures. Plant, Soils, and
Climate Faculty Publication p 730
Nyffeler R, Eggli U, Ogburn M, Edwards E (2008) Variations on a
theme: repeated evaluation of succulent life forms in the
Portulacineae (Caryophyllales). Haseltonia J 14:26-36
Oldfield S (comp) (1997) Cactus and succulent plants-status and
conservation action plan. International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources/ SSC Cactus and Succulent
Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switserland and Cambridge,
UK p 212
Randall W, Lopez R (2013) Comparing LED lighting to HPS lamps
for plug production. http://leds.hrt.msu.edu/assets/Uploads/
LEDs-on-plugs.pdf
Resh HM (1983) Hydroponics food production: a definitive
guidebook for advanced home gardener and commercial
hydroponic growers. Woodbridge Press Publishing Company.
Santa Barbara, California pp 1-89
Rorabaugh PA (2014) Introduction to hydroponics and controlled
environment agriculture. Controlled Environment Agriculture
Center, University of Arizona, Roger Road, Tucson, Arizona pp
1-7
Rowley G (1978) The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Succulents. Crown
Publishers Inc. New York, USA pp 116-135
Sevilla H, Reyes P, Calix E, Basanez M (2012) Additions to the
Crassulaceae of the State of Veracruz, Mexico. Haseltonia
18:140-152
Taiz L, Zeiger E (1991) Photosynthesis: physiological and ecological
considerations. Plant Physiology pp 249-262. The Benjamin/
Cummings Publishing Company, Inc
Zinkan L (2010) Growth and care of Crassulas. http://www.
thegardenpages.com/crassula.html
