Next Article in Journal
Progress in the Chemistry of Macrocyclic Meroterpenoids
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Nardostachys jatamansi DC. on Apoptosis, Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Induced by Doxorubicin in Wistar Rats
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/plants9111581
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Growth and Bioactive Compound Content of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel Grown under Different CO2 Concentrations and Light Intensities

by
Hye Ri Lee
1,
Hyeon Min Kim
1,
Hyeon Woo Jeong
1,
Myung Min Oh
2 and
Seung Jae Hwang
1,3,4,5,*
1
Division of Applied Life Science, Graduate School of Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
2
Division of Animal, Horticulture and Food Sciences, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea
3
Department of Agricultural Plant Science, College of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
4
Institute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
5
Research of Institute of Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(11), 1581; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111581
Submission received: 8 October 2020 / Revised: 9 November 2020 / Accepted: 10 November 2020 / Published: 15 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Development and Morphogenesis)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to determine the effect of different CO2 concentrations and light intensities on the growth, photosynthetic rate, and bioactive compound content of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel in a closed-type plant production system (CPPS). The plants were transplanted into a deep floating technique system with recycling nutrient solution (EC 1.0 dS·m-1 and pH 6.5) and cultured for 96 days under a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C, a photoperiod of 12/12 h (light/dark), and RGB LEDs (red:green:blue = 7:1:2) in a CPPS. The experimental treatments were set to 500 or 1500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentrations in combination with one of the three light intensities: 100, 200, or 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). The petiole length of G. littoralis was the longest in the 500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentration with the 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. The fresh weight (FW) and dry weight (DW) of shoots and roots were the heaviest in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD regardless of the CO2 concentration. Higher CO2 concentrations and light intensities produced the greatest photosynthetic rates. However, the SPAD value was not significantly different between the treatments. Higher light intensities produced greater content per biomass of chlorogenic acid and total saponin, although the concentration per DW or FW was not significantly different between treatments. The first and second harvest yields were the greatest in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, regardless of the CO2 concentration. These results show that the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD enhanced the growth, photosynthetic rate, and bioactive compound accumulation of G. littoralis, regardless of the CO2 concentration in a CPPS.

1. Introduction

Medicinal plants are those plants where the whole leaves, stems, flowers, fruits, roots, seeds, or whole plants are used as raw materials for medicine. Currently, medicinal plants are being used in various ways as herbal medicines and as the raw materials of cosmetics, functional health foods, and natural medicines; the interest in these products from consumers has increased, thus increasing the demand and related market size [1]. In the Republic of Korea, various medicinal plants are native in the wild because of Korea’s geographical characteristics and the four distinct seasons. However, only about 50 kinds of medicinal plants are grown in domestic farms, and there are fewer cultivation areas and productions than can supply the increasing demand; therefore, the dependence on imports is also increasing [2]. Because medicinal plants are mainly grown outdoors, the cultivation period is long, the price fluctuation is severe, and the supply of medicinal plants is inelastic. In addition, the harvest time is limited; they are difficult to store or transport; the quality varies between varieties, cultivation environment, and harvest time. Also, the study of the cultivation process for the mass production of medicinal plants (seed germination, growing seedlings, cultivation after transplanting, etc.,) is insufficient, and it is necessary to find suitable conditions for the cultivation environment and develop the optimal cultivation technology for the stable production of high-quality medicinal plants.
Glehania littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquiel is a perennial plant belonging to the Umbelliferae family and is commonly found in coastal dunes. The petiole is long and scarlet, and the leaves are divided into three branches, each having three small leaves, where the small leaves have sawtooth edges, and the young leaves are used as vegetables. It has several functional components, such as saponin, coumarin, bergapten, β-sitosterol, and imperatorin [3,4], which are known to be effective against sweating, fever, and labor pains, and have diuretic, antiviral, anti-cancer, and immunosuppression properties [5,6,7].
CO2 is a very important factor in crop cultivation as a raw material for photosynthesis. The maintenance of CO2 concentrations during growth enhances crop growth [8,9]. CO2 enrichment can enhance CO2 fixation, yield, and quality [10,11]. Previous results showed that the biomass increased by about 50% in C3 plants [12], 35% in CAM (crassulacean acid metabolism) plants [13], and 12% in C4 plants [14] under CO2 enrichment conditions. Moreover, CO2 enrichment is effective in enhancing vegetable quality by promoting the accumulation of antioxidants in vegetables. Dong et al. [15] showed that CO2 enrichment increased the ascorbic acid, chlorophyll b, total antioxidant activity, total phenols, and total flavonoids by 9.5, 42.5, 59.0, 8.9, and 45.5%, respectively. However, the studies on CO2 enrichment in medicinal plants are relatively limited compared to those on the other plants.
Light is an energy source for plant photosynthesis and an essential for plant growth, development, and bioactive compound accumulation. To achieve significant levels of plant cultivation in artificial facilities, it is important to set appropriate environmental conditions, especially with regard to light intensity. Plants grown under low light intensity have frequently been found to be more susceptible to photoinhibition than in high light intensity [16]. Previous studies have shown a decrease in the photosynthesis of eggplant [17] and reduced dry weight of wheat [18] under the weak light conditions. The long-term weak lighting conditions resulted in smaller leaf areas and thinner leaves [19]. On the other hand, too high light intensity also has negative effect on plant growth. This induces leaf wilting and reduces leaf area, chlorophyll content, and photosynthesis efficiency [20]. It can also destroy photosynthetic systems and cause serious oxidative damage to leaf tissue [21].
Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the growth, photosynthesis, and bioactive compound content of medicinal plants, and consequently, find a suitable combination of CO2 concentration and light intensity for high-quality mass production in a closed-type plant production system (CPPS).

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Growth Characteristics

The different shoot growth characteristics of G. littoralis, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment, are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. The petiole length was the longest at 8.8 cm in the 500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentration with 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, while the leaf area was the widest at 142.78 cm2 in the 500 µmol∙mol−1 with 300 PPFD (Figure 1B and Table 1). The crown diameter, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW), and dry weight (DW) of the shoots were the lowest in the 500 µmol∙mol−1 with 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. The growth of shoots was more affected by the light intensity than by the CO2 concentration, and the growth of G. littoralis in higher light intensity (300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD) was higher compared lower light intensity (100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD). An appropriate light intensity is a major factor for growth, morphogenesis, and other physiological responses [22,23]. Plants grown in a low light intensity have frequently been shown to display more photoinhibition than those grown under a high light intensity [24]. A low light intensity condition may lead to stretching of leaf length, leaf width, and plant height [25]. The G. littoralis showed an insignificant difference in the specific leaf area (SLA) (data are not shown) but the petiole length was stretched.
The root growth characteristics, such as the root length, root diameter, FW, and DW of the roots are shown in Table 2. The root growth was closely associated with the light condition for the shoot growth [26]. The root length was the shortest in the 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, regardless of the CO2 concentration, at 10.7 and 11.3 cm for the 500 and 1500 µmol∙mol−1 concentration, respectively. The root diameter was the thinnest at 6.50 mm in the 1500 µmol∙mol−1 with 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. Furthermore, the FW and DW of roots displayed a positive correlation in which the weight increased as the light intensity increased. The root growth was not affected by the CO2 concentration but, a change in the light intensity produced a significant difference. Nager et al. [27] reported that a high light intensity (300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD) enhanced the FW of the roots of Nicotiana tabacum. Similarly, Olschowski et al. [28] obtained a heavier root DW of Calibrachoa in a high light intensity when cutting. Kitaya et al. [29] suggested that an optimal PPFD can rapidly produce high-quality lettuce plug seedlings.

2.2. Photosynthetic Rate and the SPAD Value

The CO2 concentration and light intensity significantly affected the photosynthetic rate in G. littoralis (Figure 2A). The photosynthetic rate was the highest in the 1500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentration with the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD in 6.8 µmol CO2 m−2∙s−1, while the lowest was found in the 500 µmol∙mol-1 CO2 concentration with 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD in 0.5 µmol CO2 m−2∙s−1. The photosynthetic rate showed a positive correlation with CO2 concentration and the light intensity. The SPAD did not show a significant difference (Figure 2B). Zheng et al. [30] reported that a high light intensity (350 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD) increased the photosynthetic capacity of the mother plant and the primary runner plant of strawberry. Furthermore, CO2 enrichment increased the photosynthetic rate of Gerbera jamesonii [31]. G. littoralis is a crop native to coastal dunes and grows in high-light natural environments. Similar results showed that the growth of Peucedanum japonicum Thunberg, which is native to the seashore, was also efficient at increasing growth and production in a high light intensity (200 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD) than in a low light intensity (60 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD) [32].

2.3. Total Sugar and Starch

The high light intensity increased the total sugar and starch contents in G. littoralis. However, the CO2 concentration did not influence the total sugar and starch contents. The total sugar and starch contents were the highest in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD regardless of the CO2 concentration (Figure 3). In a CO2 concentration of 500 µmol∙mol−1, the total sugar and starch contents were higher in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD by 5.4 and 2.2 times compared to the 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, respectively. Many studies have reported that CO2 enrichment increases the sugar and starch contents [33,34,35], which is inconsistent with this study. G. littoralis, a halophyte with developed water storage tissue that stores a lot of water in the cell, is considered to be less sensitive to CO2 concentrations because of its thick leaves. The leaf is a photosynthetic organ, and the area and thickness are the major factors affecting the growth of the plant. To absorb sufficient light energy, the leaves are as wide as possible, and at the same time to facilitate gas exchange (CO2, O2, and H2O), the leaves are as flat and thin as possible [36]. The higher light intensity can positively affect the accumulation of assimilates, such as proteins, and the starch, and sugar of spinach increased in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD than those in the 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD [37]. In Glycine max (Linn.) Merr., a high light intensity induced photosynthetic activity, increasing the soluble sugar, sucrose, and starch contents in the shoots and roots [38].

2.4. Harvest Yield

G. littoralis can be harvested cyclically by taking a leaf. The CO2 enrichment did not have a significant effect on the harvest yield or the change in the number of leaves from the harvest to the re-harvest. However, the low light intensity condition affected the harvest yield. The first and second harvest yields, at 61 days and 96 days of treatment, are shown in Figure 4A,B, respectively. It was observed that the yield of G. littoralis was high in the light intensity of more than the 200 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, where the harvest yield increased by more than twice as much during the second harvest compared to the first harvest in the 1500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentration with 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. However, regardless of the CO2 concentration, there was no significant difference between the first and second harvest yields in the 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. This was because the high light intensity significantly affected the root development of G. littoralis and sufficient roots were produced for new leaf production. The change in the number of leaves from the harvest to the re-harvest is shown in Figure 5. The number of leaves was only affected by the light intensity, and in particular, leaves were developed the most in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. Lee et al. [39] reported that new leaf emergence and biomass accumulation were promoted at a higher apparent daily light integral level. Furthermore, the higher light intensity produced more primary and total plant runners of strawberry.

2.5. Bioactive Compound

The chlorogenic acid and total saponin concentrations per DW or FW of G. littoralis were not significantly different between the treatments (Figure 6A and Figure 7A). On the other hand, the chlorogenic acid and total saponin contents per biomass were the greatest in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD regardless of the CO2 concentration (Figure 6B and Figure 7B). In a CO2 concentration of 500 µmol∙mol−1, the chlorogenic acid and total saponin contents per biomass were higher in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD by 1.6 and 6.3 times compared to in the 100 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, respectively. In other studies, CO2 enrichment improved the nutritional qualities but the total free phenolic acids and chicoric acid contents of lettuce significantly decreased; the reaction to the elevated CO2 concentration was found to be dependent on the plant species [40,41]. The accumulation of bioactive compounds is induced by the increased soluble sugar acting as a precursor that promotes the synthesis and accumulation of antioxidants [42,43,44]. The polyphenol content of lettuce grown in a 350 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD was significantly higher than that of plants grown in a 180 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD [45]. In this study, there was no difference in the concentration of total chlorogenic acid per DW or total saponin per FW, but the production of bioactive compounds increased in the 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, which displayed high photosynthesis and superior growth.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plant Materials and Growth Condition

The G. littoralis seeds were sown in a Petri dish and the seedlings were placed in 128-hole plug trays filled with urethane sponge (Hydroponic Sponge, Easyhydro Co. Ltd., Chuncheon, Korea) in a CPPS (C1200H3, FC Poibe Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea) at a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C, relative humidity (RH) of 60 ± 10%, a photoperiod of 12/12 h (light/dark), and a 150 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD using RGB (red:green:blue = 7:1:2) LEDs (ES LEDs Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea). The 60-day-old seedlings were transplanted into a deep floating technique system with recycling Hoagland nutrient solution [46] in a CPPS. The plants were cultured for 96 days at a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C, RH of 60 ± 10%, and a photoperiod of 12/12 h (light/dark). The experimental treatments were set to 500 or 1500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentrations in combination with one of three light intensities: 100, 200, or 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD, which were provided by RGB (red:green:blue = 7:1:2) LEDs (Figure 8). In CPPS where CO2 concentration, photoperiod, and temperature are automatically controlled, the CO2 concentration was controlled by connecting a liquefied carbon dioxide tank and CO2 regulator. The CO2 concentration, temperature, and RH were monitored during the cultivation period using a data logger (TR-76Ui, T&D Co. Ltd., Nagano, Japan). The light intensity was set using a photometer (HD2101.2, Delta Ohm SrL, Caselle, Italy).

3.2. Growth Characteristics

After 56 days of treatment, the petiole length, crown and root diameters, root length, FW and DW of the shoots and roots, number of leaves, and leaf area were measured. The FW was investigated using an electronic balance (EW220-3NM, Kern & Sohn GmbH., Balingen, Germany) and the DW was investigated after drying in an oven (Venticell-220, MMM Medcenter Einrichtunger GmbH., Planegg, Germany) at 70 °C for 72 h. The crown and root diameter were measured using Vernier calipers (CD-20CPX, Mitutoyo Co. Ltd., Kawasaki, Japan). The leaf area was measured using a leaf area meter (LI-3000, LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). Photosynthetic rate was measured using a portable photosynthesis system (CIRAS-3, PP Systems International Inc., Amesbury, MA, USA) on the fully unfolded fifth leaf from the top. The measurement conditions were controlled as follows: leaf area 4.5 mm2; leaf temperature 20 °C; air flow rate 150 mL·min−1; 500 or 1500 µmol∙mol−1 CO2 concentration; 100, 200, or 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD. The chlorophyll content was expressed as the SPAD, and measured using a portable chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The first and second harvests were performed after treatment for 61 and 96 days, respectively, and the harvest yield was measured by weight of marketable leaves (over 15 cm2 of leaf area).

3.3. Total Sugar and Starch

For the total sugar content determination, the leaves of G. littoralis were ground with liquid nitrogen and stored in a deep freezer (NF-140SF, Nihon Freezer Co. Ltd., Yushima, Japan) at −70 °C. A 0.3 g sample was taken for each treatment. The samples were mixed with 10 mL of 80% ethanol and then ground for 1 min. After being heated in a 60 °C water bath, the supernatant was separated via centrifugation (908× g, 20 °C, 30 min). Then, 10 mL of 80% ethanol was added to the remaining precipitate, heated in a waterbath at 60 °C for 30 min, and centrifuged under the same conditions. After the two centrifugations, the supernatant was diluted with a total of 40 mL of 80% ethanol. Then, 0.5 mL of 5% phenol reagent was added to the sample solution, vortexed, and 2.5 mL of 98% sulfuric acid were added and vortexed. After cooling at room temperature, the absorbance was measured at 490 nm using a spectrophotometer and the total sugar content was calculated using glucose as the standard.
For the starch determination, the leaves were ground with liquid nitrogen and stored in a deep freezer at −70 °C. Total of 0.3 g of sample was used for each treatment. To solubilize the sample, 10 mL of 80% ethanol was added, shaken for 30 min, and then centrifuged at 300× g for 30 min at 20 °C. Then, 40% ethanol was added to the residue, and centrifuged again under the same conditions. Then, 2 mL of 30% HClO4 and 1 mL of dimethyl sulfoxide were added to the residue and kept at room temperature for 30 min. Then, 2 mL of distilled water and 5 mL of H2SO4 were added, and the waterbath was used to maintain the temperature at 100 °C for 1 h, then centrigugation was performed under 300× g for 30 min at 20 °C. Around 0.5 mL of this sample solution was mixed with 0.5 mL of 5% phenol reagent, then vortexed, followed by the addition of 2.5 mL of 98% sulfuric acid and the vortexed. After cooling at room temperature, the absorbance was measured at 470 nm using a spectrophotometer, and the starch content was calculated using glucose as the standard.

3.4. Bioactive Compounds

3.4.1. Chlorogenic Acid Concentration

For the quantitative analysis of chlorogenic acid, 500 mg of each powdered plant material were first mixed with 20 mL of 80% methanol and then shaken at 100 rpm on an orbital shaker for 24 h at room temperature. Afterward, all of the supernatant was centrifuged at 4250× g for 5 min. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.2 μm syringe filter (25HP020AN, Advantech Co. Ltd., Asan, Korea) before being injected into a high-performance liquid chromatography device (Nexera, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan) system equipped with an 4.6 × 150 mm, 5 μm column (Agilent Eclipse plus-C18, Agilent Technology Co Ltd., Santa Clara, CA, USA) and a guard column maintained at 30 °C. Solvents A (methanol) and B (trifluoroacetic acid) were used as the mobile phases. The gradient was as follows: 0 min, 100% A; 3 min, 10% B; 8 min, 30% B; 30 min, 50% B; 40 min, 60% B; 50 min, 100% B; held constant for 10 min. The flow rate was 0.8 mL·min−1 and the injection volume was 10 μL. The chromatogram was monitored at 270 nm using photodiode array detection. To present the chlorogenic acid, concentrations of the derivatized samples, standard curves were prepared using 3-(3,4-dihydroxycinnamoyl) quinic acid (chlorogenic acid, Sigma-Aldrich Co. Ltd., St. Louis, MO, USA). Then, the calculated values were converted to the concentrations in terms of milligrams of chlorogenic acid, per grams of DW of the samples.

3.4.2. Total Saponin Concentration

To measure the total saponin concentration of the root, the total saponin content was extracted using a method modified from [47]. About 0.5 g root powder was defatted with 10 mL of petroleum ether by shaking it for 4 h, and then the residues were extracted twice, each with 5 mL of 80% aqueous methanol, by shaking for 4 h each time on an orbit shaker. The extracts were stored at 4 °C in the dark for later use. Approximately 100 μL of the extract was mixed with 400 μL of 80% methanol, 500 μL of 8% vanillin solution, and 5 mL of 72% sulfuric acid. After the mixture was heated in a water bath at 60 °C for 10 min, it was cooled in ice-cold water. The absorbance of the supernatant was measured using a spectrophotometer at 544 nm to determine the total saponin concentration, which was expressed as milligrams of saponin equivalent (SE) per grams of fresh weight.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

The experiment involved three replicates and ten plants per replicate, and was laid out in a completely randomized block design. After selecting uniform plants, three plants per replicate were used to determine the plant growth parameters and three plants per replicate were used to determine the photosynthetic rate; the total sugar, starch, and bioactive compounds; and the harvest yield. The statistical analyses were carried out using the SAS program (SAS 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The experimental results were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple range tests. Graphing was performed with the SigmaPlot program (SigmaPlot 12.0, Systat Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).

4. Conclusions

This study focused on the effects of CO2 concentration (500 or 1500 µmol∙mol−1) and light intensity (100, 200, or 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD) on the growth, photosynthetic rate, and bioactive compound content of G. littoralis to find an appropriate CO2 concentration and light intensity for the high-quality, mass production of medicinal plants grown in a CPPS. The G. littoralis was not affected by the CO2 concentration, while a high light intensity increased the growth, bioactive compound content, and harvest yield. The data showed that a 300 µmol∙m−2∙s−1 PPFD greatly enhanced the plant production in a CPPS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J.H.; methodology, H.R.L. and S.J.H.; software, H.R.L.; validation, H.R.L., H.M.K., and H.R.L.; formal analysis, H.R.L.; investigation, H.R.L., H.M.K., and H.W.J.; resources, S.J.H.; data curation, H.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.R.L.; writing—review and editing, S.J.H.; visualization, H.R.L.; supervision, S.J.H.; project administration, H.R.L., M.M.O.; funding acquisition, M.M.O., S.J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ01385201)” Rural Development Administration, Korea.

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with the support of the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ01385201)” Rural Development Administration, Korea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Food & Drug Statistical Yearbook; Ministry of Food and Drug Safety: Cheongju, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA). Production Performance of Industrial Crop; Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Sejong, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Seo, Y.K.; Ryu, K.S. Study on the component of Glehniae Radix. Korean J. Pharmacogn. 1977, 7, 233–235. [Google Scholar]
  4. Yuan, Z.; Tezuka, Y.; Fan, W.; Kadota, S.; Li, X. Constituents of the underground parts of Glehnia littoralis. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2002, 50, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kim, S.J.; Chin, Y.W.; Yoon, K.D.; Ryu, M.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.W. Chemical constituents of Saposhnikovia divaricate. Korean J. Pharmacogn. 2008, 39, 357–364. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jia, Z.; Tang, M.; Wu, J. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem. 1999, 64, 555–559. [Google Scholar]
  7. Blois, M.S. Antioxidant determinations by the use of a stable free radical. Nature 1958, 181, 1199–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McMurtrie, R.E.; Wang, Y.P. Mathematical models of the photosynthetic response of tree stands to rising CO2 concentration and temperatures. Plant Cell Environ. 1993, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leadley, P.W.; Niklaus, P.A.; Stocker, R. A field study of the effects of elevated CO2 on plant biomass and community structure in a calcareous grassland. Oecologia 1999, 118, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: Mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xu, Z.Z.; Xhimizu, H.; Yagasaki, Y.; Ito, S.; Zheng, Y.R.; Zhou, G.S. Interactive effects of elevated CO2 drought, and warming on plants. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 32, 692–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Prior, S.A.; Brett Runion, G.; Rogers, H.H.; Torbert, H.A.; Reeves, D.W. Elevated atmospheric CO2 effects on biomass production and soil carbon in conventional and conservation cropping systems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 4, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Drennan, P.M.; Nobel, P.S. Responses of CAM species to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Plant Cell Environ. 2000, 8, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Poorter, H.; Navas, M. Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: On winners, losers and functional groups. CO2 Biosph. 1993, 1, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Dong, J.L.; Gruda, N.; Lam, S.K.; Li, X.; Duan, Z.Q. Effects of elevated CO2 on nutritional quality of vegetables: A review. Front Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Long, S.P.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A.; Ort, D.R. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: Plants FACE the future. Annu. Rev. Biol. 2004, 55, 591–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Yu, J.H.; Shu, Y.J.; Lv, J.F.; Zhang, G.B. Influences of low temperature and poor light on photosynthetic characteristics in eggplant seedlings. Acta Bot. Boreali Occident. Sin. 2004, 24, 831–836. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen, E.Y. Grain Yield and Protein Quality in Response to Shading after Anthesis and Nitrogen Regulation in Wheat. Ph.D. Thesis, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  19. Qin, Y.; Zhang, H.; Dong, B.; Shi, C.; Li, Y.; Zhai, H.; Liu, M. Effects of elevated CO2 concentration on growth and water use efficiency of winter wheat under two soil water regimes. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1742–1748. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shirke, P.A.; Pathere, U.V. Diuranal and seasonal changes in photosynthesis and photosystem 2 photochemical efficiency in Prosopis juliflora leaves subjected to natural environmental stress. Photosynyhetica 2003, 41, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Farquhar, G.D.; Sharkey, T.D. Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Ann. Rev. 1982, 33, 317–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rajapake, N.C.; Pollock, R.K.; McMahon, M.J. Interpretation of light quality measurements and plant response in spectral filter research. HortScience 1992, 27, 1208–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Li, Q.; Kubota, C. Effects of supplemental light quality on growth and phytochemiclas of baby leaf lettuce. J. Envrion. Exp. Bot. 2009, 67, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Long, S.P.; Humphries, S.; Falkowski, P.G. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1994, 45, 633–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Steinger, T.; Roy, B.A.; Stanton, M.L. Evolution in stressful environments II: Adaptive value and costs of plasticity in response to low light in Sinapis arvensis. J. Evol. Biol. 2003, 16, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Farrar, J.E.; Jones, D.L. The control of carbon acquisition by roots. New Philol. 2000, 147, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nager, K.A.; Schurr, U.; Walter, A. Dynamics of root growth stimulation in Nicotiana tabacum in increasing light intensity. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29, 1926–1945. [Google Scholar]
  28. Olschowski, S.; Geiger, E.M.; Herrmann, J.V.; Sander, G.; Grüneberg, H. Effects of red, blue, and white LED irradiation on root and shoot development of Calibrachoa cuttings in comparison to high pressure sodium lamps. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1134, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kitaya, Y.; Niu, G.; Kozai, T.; Ohashi, M. Photosynthetic photon flux, photoperiod, and CO2 concentration affect growth and morphology of lettuce plug seedling. HortScience 1998, 33, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zheng, J.; He, D.; Ji, F. Effects of light intensity and photoperiod on runner plant propagation of hydroponic strawberry transplants under LED lighting. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2019, 12, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, S.; Zhu, X.; Li, C.; Ye, Q. Effect of CO2 enrichment on photosynthesis and growth in Gerbera jamesonii. J. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 177, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Song, K.S.; Jeon, K.S.; Park Choi, K.S.; Kim, C.H.; Park, Y.B.; Kim, J.J. Characteristics of photosynthesis and leaf growth of Peucedanum japonicum by leaf mold and shading level in forest farming. Korean J. Med. Crop Sci. 2015, 23, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Croonenborghs, S.; Ceusters, J.; Londers, E.; De Proft, M.P. Effects of elevated CO2 on growth and morphological characteristics of ornamental bromeliads. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 2, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Qian, T.; Dieleman, J.A.; Elings, A.; Marcelis, L. Leaf photosynthetic and morphological responses to elevated CO2 concentration and altered fruit number in the semi-closed greenhouse. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 145, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Aranjuelo, I.; Cabrerizo, P.M.; Arrese-Igor, C.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.M. Pea plant responsiveness under elevated CO2 is conditioned by N source (N2 fixation versus NO3-fertilization). Envirion. Exp. Bot. 2013, 95, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Tsukaya, H. Leaf shape: Genetic controls and environmental factors. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2005, 49, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Utasi, L.; Monostori, I.; Végh, B.; Pék, Z.; Éva, D. Effects of light intensity and spectral composition on the growth and metabolism of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Acta Biol. Plant. Agriensis 2019, 7, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  38. Feng, L.Y.; Raza, M.A.; Li, Z.C.; Chen, Y.K.; Khalid, M.H.B.; Du, J.B.; Liu, W.G.; Xu, X.L.; Song, C.; Yu, L.A.; et al. The influence of light intensity and leaf movement on photosynthesis characteristics and carbon balance of soybean. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lee, H.B.; Lee, U.H.; An, S.K.; Park, J.H.; Kim, K.S. Growth characteristics and flowering initiation of Phalaenopsis Queen Beer ‘Mantefon’ as affected by the daily light integral. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2019, 60, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pérez-López, U.; Sgherri, C.; Miranda-Apodaca, J.; Micaelli, F.; Lacuesta, M.; Mena-Petite, A.; Quartacci, M.F.; Muñoz-Rueda, A. Concentration of phenolic compounds is increased in lettuce grown under high light intensity and elevated CO2. Plant Physiol. Biochem 2018, 123, 233–241. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sgherri, C.; Scattino, C.; Pinzino, C.; Tonutti, P.; Ranieri, A.M. Ultarviolet-B radiation applied to detached peach fruit: A study of free radical generation by EPR spin trapping. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 96, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, S.Y.; Bunce, J.A.; Mass, J.L. Elevated carbon dioxide increased content of antioxidant. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 4315–4320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jaafar, H.Z.E.; Ibrahim, M.H.; Karimi, E. Phenolics and flavonoids compounds, phenylanine ammonia lyse and antioxidant activity responses to elevated CO2 in Labisia pumila (Myrisinaceae). Molecules 2012, 17, 6331–6347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Becker, C.; Kläring, H.P. CO2 enrichment can produce high red leaf lettuce yield while increasing most flavonoid glycoside and some caffeic acid derivative concentration. Food Chem. 2016, 199, 736–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Kawasaki, S.I.; Toniaga, J.; Yabuta, S.; Wantanabe, K.; Jaiphong, T.; Ueno, M.; Kawamitsu, Y. Responses of growth, photosynthesis, and associated component to hypoxia at different light intensities in red leaf lettuce. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hoagland, D.R.; Arnon, D.I. The Water-Culture Method for Growing Plants without Plant, 3rd ed.; University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station: Oakland, CA, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  47. Makker, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Nutrients and antiquality factors in different morphological parts of the Moringa oleifera tree. J. Agric. Sci. 1997, 128, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 09 01581 g001 550
Figure 1. Images of the growth of the whole plant (A) and leaf (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel as affected by different CO2 concentrations and light intensities.
Figure 1. Images of the growth of the whole plant (A) and leaf (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel as affected by different CO2 concentrations and light intensities.
Plants 09 01581 g001
Plants 09 01581 g002 550
Figure 2. Photosynthetic rate (A) and SPAD (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Figure 2. Photosynthetic rate (A) and SPAD (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Plants 09 01581 g002
Plants 09 01581 g003 550
Figure 3. The different total sugar (A) and starch (B) contents of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Figure 3. The different total sugar (A) and starch (B) contents of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Plants 09 01581 g003
Plants 09 01581 g004 550
Figure 4. The different first (A) and second (B) harvest yields of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Figure 4. The different first (A) and second (B) harvest yields of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Plants 09 01581 g004
Plants 09 01581 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in the number of leaves on Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). *, **, *** Significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.
Figure 5. Changes in the number of leaves on Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). *, **, *** Significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.
Plants 09 01581 g005
Plants 09 01581 g006 550
Figure 6. The different chlorogenic acid concentrations (A) and contents per biomass (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel shoots, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Figure 6. The different chlorogenic acid concentrations (A) and contents per biomass (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel shoots, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Plants 09 01581 g006
Plants 09 01581 g007 550
Figure 7. The different total saponin concentration (A) and content per biomass (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel shoots, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Figure 7. The different total saponin concentration (A) and content per biomass (B) of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel shoots, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation of the mean (n = 3). Different letters above bars indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05, using Tukey’s multiple range test.
Plants 09 01581 g007
Plants 09 01581 g008 550
Figure 8. Relative spectral distribution of the RGB LEDs (red:green:blue = 7:1:2) used in a closed-type plant production system.
Figure 8. Relative spectral distribution of the RGB LEDs (red:green:blue = 7:1:2) used in a closed-type plant production system.
Plants 09 01581 g008
Table
Table 1. The different shoot growth characteristics of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment (n = 3).
Table 1. The different shoot growth characteristics of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment (n = 3).
CO2 Concentration
(µmol∙mol−1)
(A)		Light Intensity (µmol∙m−2∙s−1) (B)Petiole Length (cm)Leaf Area (cm2/plant)Crown Diameter (mm)No. of LeavesFresh Weight (g/plant)Dry Weight (g/plant)
5001008.8 ± 0.9 a z82.65 ± 13.1 bc8.0 ± 0.6 bc8.0 ± 0.6 bc5.93 ± 1.1 bc1.28 ± 0.2 bc
2007.0 ± 0.7 ab112.23 ± 19.7 ab13.5 ± 2.1 ab12.2 ± 2.1 ab8.19 ± 1.7 ab1.61 ± 0.4 ab
3005.3 ± 0.4 b142.78 ± 13.4 a13.8 ± 1.7 a14.2 ± 3.0 ab10.85 ± 0.7 a2.17 ± 0.2 a
15001006.6 ± 0.7 ab46.60 ± 9.5 c7.6 ± 0.5 c6.8 ± 1.4 c3.12 ± 0.6 c0.58 ± 0.1 c
2005.0 ± 0.3 b104.33 ± 15.1 ab14.7 ± 1.4 a16.5 ± 1.2 a7.55 ± 1.2 ab1.53 ± 0.2 ab
3005.2 ± 0.2 b107.04 ± 17.7 ab13.8 ± 0.6 a12.7 ± 1.4 ab9.15 ± 1.1 ab2.01 ± 0.2 ab
Significance yA***NSNSNSNS
B*****************
A × BNSNSNSNSNSNS
z Mean separation within columns using Tukey’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05. y NS, *, **, *** Nonsignificant or significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively.
Table
Table 2. The different root growth characteristics of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment (n = 3).
Table 2. The different root growth characteristics of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel, as affected by various CO2 concentrations and light intensities after 56 days of treatment (n = 3).
CO2 Concentration
(µmol∙mol−1) (A)		Light Intensity (µmol∙m−2∙s−1) (B)Root Length (cm)Root Diameter (mm)Fresh Weight (g/plant)Dry Weight (g/plant)
50010010.7 ± 0.4 b z9.6 ± 0.5 ab4.53 ± 0.2 cd 1.20 ± 0.1 c
20029.9 ± 1.5 a11.0 ± 0.3 a11.60 ± 2.4 ab1.68 ± 0.4 bc
30026.3 ± 2.2 a12.0 ± 0.7 a16.60 ± 0.7 a2.71 ± 0.1 a
150010011.3 ± 0.5 b6.5 ± 0.8 b3.81 ± 0.7 d0.80 ± 0.2 c
20025.5 ± 1.6 a10.4 ± 1.3 a10.12 ± 1.3 bc1.51 ± 0.4 bc
30031.7 ± 1.5 a12.3 ± 0.4 a14.83 ± 1.8 ab2.20 ± 0.2 ab
Significance yANSNSNSNS
B************
A × B**NSNSNS
z Mean separation within columns using Tukey’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05. y NS, **, *** Nonsignificant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 or 0.001, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, H.R.; Kim, H.M.; Jeong, H.W.; Oh, M.M.; Hwang, S.J. Growth and Bioactive Compound Content of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel Grown under Different CO2 Concentrations and Light Intensities. Plants 2020, 9, 1581. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111581

AMA Style

Lee HR, Kim HM, Jeong HW, Oh MM, Hwang SJ. Growth and Bioactive Compound Content of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel Grown under Different CO2 Concentrations and Light Intensities. Plants. 2020; 9(11):1581. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111581

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Hye Ri, Hyeon Min Kim, Hyeon Woo Jeong, Myung Min Oh, and Seung Jae Hwang. 2020. "Growth and Bioactive Compound Content of Glehnia littoralis Fr. Schmidt ex Miquel Grown under Different CO2 Concentrations and Light Intensities" Plants 9, no. 11: 1581. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111581

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop