Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Manipulation of plant structure can strongly affect light distribution in the canopy and photosynthesis. The aim of this paper is to find a plant ideotype for optimization of light absorption and canopy photosynthesis. Using a static functional structural plant model (FSPM), a range of different plant architectural characteristics was tested for two different seasons in order to find the optimal architecture with respect to light absorption and photosynthesis. METHODS: Simulations were performed with an FSPM of a greenhouse-grown tomato crop. Sensitivity analyses were carried out for leaf elevation angle, leaf phyllotaxis, leaflet angle, leaf shape, leaflet arrangement and internode length. From the results of this analysis two possible ideotypes were proposed. Four different vertical light distributions were also tested, while light absorption cumulated over the whole canopy was kept the same. KEY RESULTS: Photosynthesis was augmented by 6 % in winter and reduced by 7 % in summer, when light absorption in the top part of the canopy was increased by 25 %, while not changing light absorption of the canopy as a whole. The measured plant structure was already optimal with respect to leaf elevation angle, leaflet angle and leaflet arrangement for both light absorption and photosynthesis while phyllotaxis had no effect. Increasing the length : width ratio of leaves by 1·5 or increasing internode length from 7 cm to 12 cm led to an increase of 6-10 % for light absorption and photosynthesis. CONCLUSIONS: At high light intensities (summer) deeper penetration of light in the canopy improves crop photosynthesis, but not at low light intensities (winter). In particular, internode length and leaf shape affect the vertical distribution of light in the canopy. A new plant ideotype with more spacious canopy architecture due to long internodes and long and narrow leaves led to an increase in crop photosynthesis of up to 10 %.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing top-canopy light absorption by 25% augmented tomato canopy photosynthesis by 6% in winter.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume1 - Treatment
- light absorption in the top part of the canopy was increased by 25 %e0
- Outcome
- Photosynthesise0
- Direction
- augmentede0
- Value
- 6 %e0
- Qualifier
- wintere0
- Comparator
- not changing light absorption of the canopy as a wholee0
- Setting
- greenhouse-growne1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photosynthesis was augmented by 6 % in winter and reduced by 7 % in summer, when light absorption in the top part of the canopy was increased by 25 %, while not changing light absorption of the canopy as a whole.”
e1“Simulations were performed with an FSPM of a greenhouse-grown tomato crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
The same 25% top-canopy light increase reduced tomato canopy photosynthesis by 7% in summer.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- light absorption in the top part of the canopy was increased by 25 %e0
- Outcome
- Photosynthesise0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 7 %e0
- Qualifier
- summere0
- Comparator
- not changing light absorption of the canopy as a wholee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photosynthesis was augmented by 6 % in winter and reduced by 7 % in summer, when light absorption in the top part of the canopy was increased by 25 %, while not changing light absorption of the canopy as a whole.”
e1“Simulations were performed with an FSPM of a greenhouse-grown tomato crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Measured tomato leaf elevation angle, leaflet angle and leaflet arrangement were already optimal for light absorption and photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Organ / stage
- leaf elevation angle, leaflet angle and leaflet arrangemente0
- Outcome
- light absorption and photosynthesise0
- Direction
- optimale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The measured plant structure was already optimal with respect to leaf elevation angle, leaflet angle and leaflet arrangement for both light absorption and photosynthesis”
e1“greenhouse-grown tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf phyllotaxis had no effect on tomato light absorption or photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume2
- Organ / stage
- phyllotaxise0
- Outcome
- light absorption and photosynthesise1
- Direction
- no effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phyllotaxis had no effect”
e1“for both light absorption and photosynthesis while phyllotaxis had no effect”
e2“greenhouse-grown tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing tomato leaf length-to-width ratio by 1.5 increased light absorption and photosynthesis by 6–10%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Increasing the length : width ratio of leaves by 1·5e0
- Outcome
- light absorption and photosynthesise0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 6-10 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the length : width ratio of leaves by 1·5 or increasing internode length from 7 cm to 12 cm led to an increase of 6-10 % for light absorption and photosynthesis.”
e1“greenhouse-grown tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing tomato internode length from 7 to 12 cm increased light absorption and photosynthesis by 6–10%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- increasing internode length from 7 cm to 12 cme0
- Outcome
- light absorption and photosynthesise0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 6-10 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the length : width ratio of leaves by 1·5 or increasing internode length from 7 cm to 12 cm led to an increase of 6-10 % for light absorption and photosynthesis.”
e1“greenhouse-grown tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Deeper light penetration improved tomato photosynthesis at summer light intensities, but not at winter light intensities.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- deeper penetration of light in the canopye0
- Outcome
- crop photosynthesise0
- Direction
- improvese0
- Qualifier
- high light intensities (summer)e0
- Comparator
- low light intensities (winter)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At high light intensities (summer) deeper penetration of light in the canopy improves crop photosynthesis, but not at low light intensities (winter).”
e1“greenhouse-grown tomato crop”
Claim · model-written summary
A spacious tomato ideotype with long internodes and long, narrow leaves increased crop photosynthesis by up to 10%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- more spacious canopy architecture due to long internodes and long and narrow leavese0
- Outcome
- crop photosynthesise0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- up to 10 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A new plant ideotype with more spacious canopy architecture due to long internodes and long and narrow leaves led to an increase in crop photosynthesis of up to 10 %.”
e1“greenhouse-grown tomato crop”
The same questions in other papers
light · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 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.