Abstract
Indoor horticulture requires a substantial quantity of electricity to meet crops extended photoperiodic requirements for optimal photosynthetic rate. Simultaneously, global electricity costs have grown dramatically in recent years, endangering the sustainability and profitability of indoor vertical farms and/or modern greenhouses that use artificial lighting systems to accelerate crop development and growth. This study investigates the growth rate and physiological development of cherry tomato plants cultivated in a pilot indoor vertical farm at the Agricultural University of Athens’ Laboratory of Farm Structures (AUA) under continuous and disruptive lighting. The leaf physiological traits from multiple photoperiodic stress treatments were analyzed and utilized to estimate the plant’s tolerance rate under varied illumination conditions. Four different photoperiodic treatments were examined and compared, firstly plants grew under 14 h of continuous light (C-14L10D/control), secondly plants grew under a normalized photoperiod of 14 h with intermittent light intervals of 10 min of light followed by 50 min of dark (NI-14L10D/stress), the third treatment where plants grew under 14 h of a load-shifted energy demand response intermittent lighting schedule (LSI-14L10D/stress) and finally plants grew under 13 h photoperiod following of a load-shifted energy demand response intermittent lighting schedule (LSI-13L11D/stress). Plants were subjected also under two different light spectra for all the treatments, specifically WHITE and Blue/Red/Far-red light composition. The aim was to develop flexible, energy-efficient lighting protocols that maintain crop productivity while reducing electricity consumption in indoor settings. Results indicated that short periods of disruptive light did not negatively impact physiological responses, and plants exhibited tolerance to abiotic stress induced by intermittent lighting. Post-harvest data indicated that intermittent lighting regimes maintained or enhanced growth compared to continuous lighting, with spectral composition further influencing productivity. Plants under LSI-14L10D and B/R/FR spectra produced up to 93 g fresh fruit per plant and 30.4 g dry mass, while consuming up to 16 kWh less energy than continuous lighting—highlighting the potential of flexible lighting strategies for improved energy-use efficiency.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Short disruptive light periods did not negatively affect physiological responses.
- Taxon
- cherry tomato plants
Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee1 - Treatment
- short periods of disruptive lighte0
- Outcome
- physiological responsese0
- Direction
- did not negatively impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“short periods of disruptive light did not negatively impact physiological responses”
e1“growth rate and physiological development of cherry tomato plants cultivated”
Claim · model-written summary
Plants tolerated intermittent-light abiotic stress.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Outcome
- tolerance to abiotic stress induced by intermittent lightinge0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“plants exhibited tolerance to abiotic stress induced by intermittent lighting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intermittent lighting maintained or enhanced growth relative to continuous lighting.
- Taxon
- cherry tomato plantsSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee1
- Treatment
- intermittent lighting regimese0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- maintained or enhancede0
- Comparator
- continuous lightinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intermittent lighting regimes maintained or enhanced growth compared to continuous lighting”
e1“growth rate and physiological development of cherry tomato plants cultivated”
Claim · model-written summary
Spectral composition influenced productivity.
- Taxon
- cherry tomato plantsSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee1
- Treatment
- spectral compositione0
- Outcome
- productivitye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spectral composition further influencing productivity.”
e1“growth rate and physiological development of cherry tomato plants cultivated”
Claim · model-written summary
LSI-14L10D under B/R/FR yielded up to 93 g fresh fruit per plant.
- Taxon
- PlantsViridiplantaee0
- Treatment
- LSI-14L10D and B/R/FR spectrae0
- Outcome
- fresh fruit per plante0
- Value
- 93 ge0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plants under LSI-14L10D and B/R/FR spectra produced up to 93 g fresh fruit per plant and 30.4 g dry mass, while consuming up to 16 kWh less energy than continuous lighting”
Claim · model-written summary
LSI-14L10D under B/R/FR yielded 30.4 g dry mass.
- Taxon
- PlantsViridiplantaee0
- Treatment
- LSI-14L10D and B/R/FR spectrae0
- Outcome
- dry masse0
- Value
- 30.4 ge0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plants under LSI-14L10D and B/R/FR spectra produced up to 93 g fresh fruit per plant and 30.4 g dry mass, while consuming up to 16 kWh less energy than continuous lighting”
Claim · model-written summary
The LSI-14L10D B/R/FR regime used up to 16 kWh less energy than continuous lighting.
Verbatim
e0“Plants under LSI-14L10D and B/R/FR spectra produced up to 93 g fresh fruit per plant and 30.4 g dry mass, while consuming up to 16 kWh less energy than continuous lighting”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
222 papers more in this group
See all 226 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.