Under natural conditions, irradiance frequently fluctuates, causing net photosynthesis rate (A) to respond slowly and reducing the yields. We quantified the genotypic variation of photosynthetic induction in 19 genotypes among the following six horticultural crops: basil, chrysanthemum, cucumber, lettuce, tomato, and rose. Kinetics of photosynthetic induction and the stomatal opening were measured by exposing shade-adapted leaves (50 μmol m–2 s–1) to a high irradiance (1000 μmol m–2 s–1) until A reached a steady state. Rubisco activation rate was estimated by the kinetics of carboxylation capacity, which was quantified using dynamic A vs. [CO2] curves. Generally, variations in photosynthetic induction kinetics were larger between crops and smaller between cultivars of the same crop. Time until reaching 20–90% of full A induction varied by 40–60% across genotypes, and this was driven by a variation in the stomatal opening rather than Rubisco activation kinetics. Stomatal conductance kinetics were partly determined by differences in the stomatal size and density; species with densely packed, smaller stomata (e.g., cucumber) tended to open their stomata faster, adapting stomatal conductance more rapidly and efficiently than species with larger but fewer stomata (e.g., chrysanthemum). We conclude that manipulating stomatal traits may speed up photosynthetic induction and growth of horticultural crops under natural irradiance fluctuations.

The conversion of supplemental greenhouse light energy into biomass is not always optimal. Recent trends in global energy prices and discussions on climate change highlight the need to reduce our energy footprint associated with the use of supplemental light in greenhouse crop production. This can be achieved by implementing “smart” lighting regimens which in turn rely on a good understanding of how fluctuating light influences photosynthetic physiology. Here, a simple fit-for-purpose dynamic model is presented. It accurately predicts net leaf photosynthesis under natural fluctuating light. It comprises two ordinary differential equations predicting: 1) the total stomatal conductance to CO2 diffusion and 2) the CO2 concentration inside a leaf. It contains elements of the Farquhar-von Caemmerer-Berry model and the successful incorporation of this model suggests that for tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), it is sufficient to assume that Rubisco remains activated despite rapid fluctuations in irradiance. Furthermore, predictions of the net photosynthetic rate under both 400ppm and enriched 800ppm ambient CO2 concentrations indicate a strong correlation between the dynamic rate of photosynthesis and the rate of electron transport. Finally, we are able to indicate whether dynamic photosynthesis is Rubisco or electron transport rate limited.

The conversion of supplemental greenhouse light energy into biomass is not always optimal. Recent trends in global energy prices and discussions on climate change highlight the need to reduce our energy footprint associated with the use of supplemental light in greenhouse crop production. This can be achieved by implementing "smart" lighting regimens which in turn rely on a good understanding of how fluctuating light influences photosynthetic physiology. Here, a simple fit-for-purpose dynamic model is presented. It accurately predicts net leaf photosynthesis under natural fluctuating light. It comprises two ordinary differential equations predicting: 1) the total stomatal conductance to CO2 diffusion and 2) the CO2 concentration inside a leaf. It contains elements of the Farquhar-von Caemmerer-Berry model and the successful incorporation of this model suggests that for tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), it is sufficient to assume that Rubisco remains activated despite rapid fluctuations in irradiance. Furthermore, predictions of the net photosynthetic rate under both 400ppm and enriched 800ppm ambient CO2 concentrations indicate a strong correlation between the dynamic rate of photosynthesis and the rate of electron transport. Finally, we are able to indicate whether dynamic photosynthesis is Rubisco or electron transport rate limited.

No abstract