Adaptation of indoor ornamental plants to various lighting levels in growth chambers simulating workplace environments
Open accessAbstract
Despite the growing interest in indoor greenery and its positive effects on occupants’ well-being, there is limited knowledge on the optimal light levels for indoor plants that ensure energy efficiency and sustainable growth. This study explored the survival of ornamental plants under low-light conditions typical of indoor workplaces without daylight and investigated the impact of increased light intensity or extended day length on their growth. Three species of foliage plants ( Epipremnum aureum , Pachira aquatica , and Rhaphidophora tetrasperma ) were cultivated in growth chambers with three different lighting schemes. The results showed that plants sustained growth with 6.8 μmol m −2 s −1 white LED light for 9 h/day, suggesting that extra lighting might not be necessary for shade-tolerant species in offices. In this environment, plants maintained efficient photosynthesis under low illumination by increasing their specific leaf area. Elevating the light to 20.1 μmol m −2 s −1 and extending the day length to 18 h/day enhanced the plants’ relative growth rate. Climbing plants allocated more biomass to stems, resulting in a lower leaf weight ratio and noticeably altering their appearance. This study demonstrates that customized lighting strategies effectively support indoor greening goals, like adjusting intensity for energy savings or adding light for greening large spaces.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Sugano, S., Ishii, M., & Tanabe, S.-I.
- Affiliations
- Waseda University (JP)
- National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Sugano, Soma
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2024-07-29
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17424-17424
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11286858
- OpenAlex
- W4401079028
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20J23025, 20K21038)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Light effects on plants
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Greenhouse Technology and Climate Control
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Flowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
- Keywords
- indoor ornamental plants, low-light conditions, artificial lighting, LED lighting, Epipremnum aureum, Pachira aquatica, foliage plants, day length, photosynthesis, specific leaf area, relative growth rate, leaf weight ratio, climbing plants, indoor greening, office environment, energy efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Working Conditions, Adaptation, Physiological, Light, Lighting, Photosynthesis, Workplace, Plant Leaves, Biomass
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review