Indoor farming can contribute to the world food production in the coming decades. Indoor growing would greatly reduce the need for water and pesticides to grow crops and enable the production of safe, clean, nutritious, and affordable food. However, to realize the yields needed, some of the plant’s requirements must be met. For this a climate system was designed where light, temperature, and evaporation are controlled independently. In the modular system, a laminar airflow controls evaporation, independent of light levels and without impact of infrared light. Together with crop models, calculations and predictions of yields can be made, which are necessary to define commercial success in advance.
The Plant Balance Model allows to further increase yields and quality by fine-tuning the specific effects of temperature, evaporation, light, and crop management.
In the modular indoor farm, a large variety of crops can be grown. It can consist of a single-layer growing area dedicated for vine crops like tomato, cucumber, and pepper. Alternatively, a multilayer area can produce herbs, lettuce, and other small crops.
Plant balance Tomato Vine crops Indoor farming
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Atwell B, Kriedeman P, Turnbull C (1999) Plants in action. Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
Castillon A, Shen H, Huq E (2007) Phytochrome interacting factors: central players in phytochrome-mediated light signaling networks. Trends Plant Sci 12:515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerdan P, Chory J (2003) Regulation of flowering time by light quality. Nature 423:881–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chitwood D, Kumar R, Ranjan A et al (2015) Light-induced indeterminacy alters shade-avoiding tomato leaf morphology. Pl Physiol 169:2030–2047Google Scholar
Corbesier L, Vincent C, Jang S et al (2007) FT protein movement contributes to long-distance signaling in floral induction of arabidopsis. Science 316:1030–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford A, McLachlan D, Hetherington A et al (2012) High temperature exposure increases plant cooling capacity. Curr Biol 22(10):R396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demotes-Mainard S, Peron T, Corot A et al (2016) Plant responses to red and far-red lights, applications in horticulture. Environ Exp Bot 121:4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta S, Sharma S, Santisree P et al (2014) Complex and shifting interactions of phytochromes regulate fruit development in tomato. Pl Cell & Environ 37:1688–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogewoning S, Trouwborst G, Maljaars H et al (2010) Blue light dose–responses of leaf photosynthesis, morphology, and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combinations of red and blue light. J Exp Bot 61:3107–3117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaillias Y, Chory J (2010) Unraveling the paradoxes of plant hormone signaling integration. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17:642–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperbauer M (1987) Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects on phytochrome-mediated assimilate partitioning under field conditions. Pl Phys 85:350–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim S, Yu X, Michaels S (2008) Regulation of CONSTANS and FLOWERING LOCUS T expression in response to changing light quality. Pl Physiol 148:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong S-G, Okajima K (2016) Diverse photoreceptors and light responses in plants. J Plant Res 129:111–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lastdrager J, Hanson J, Smeekens S (2014) Sugar signals and the control of plant growth and development. J Exp Bot 65(3):799–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llorente B, D’Andrea L, Rodriguez-Concepcion M (2016a) Evolutionary recycling of light signaling components in fleshy fruits: New insights on the role of pigments to monitor ripening. Front Pl Sc 7, 263Google Scholar
Llorente B, D’Andrea L, Ruiz-Sola M et al (2016b) b. Tomato fruit carotenoid biosynthesis is adjusted to actual ripening progression by a light-dependent mechanism. Plant J 85:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massa G, Kim H, Wheeler R et al (2008) Plant productivity in response to LED lighting. Hortscience 43(7):1951–1956Google Scholar
Medrano E, Lorenzo P, Sanchez-Guerrero M et al (2005) Evaluation and modelling of greenhouse cucumber-crop transpiration under high and low radiation conditions. Sci Hortic 105:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Possart A, Fleck C, Hiltbrunner A (2014) Shedding (far-red) light on phytochrome mechanisms and responses in land plants. Plant Sci 217–218:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seversike T, Sermons S, Sinclair T et al (2013) Temperature interactions with transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among cultivated and wild soybean genotypes. Physiol Plant 148:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson G, Gendall A, Dean C (1999) When to switch to flowering. Ann Rev Dev Biol 99:519–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stitt M, Zeeman S (2012) Starch turnover: pathways, regulation and role in growth. Curr Op Pl Biol 15:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeno (2016) Stress-induced flowering: the third category of flowering response. J Exp Bot 67(17):4925–4934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner N, Schulze E, Gollan T (1984) The responses of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content - I. Species comparisons at high soil water contents. Oecologia 63:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyree M, Wilmot T (1990) Errors in the calculation of evaporation and leaf conductance in steady-state porometry; the importance of accurate measurement of leaf temperature. Can J For Res 20:1031–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijken A, Schliemann H, Smeekens S (2004) Arabidopsis trehalose-6-phosphate synthase 1 is essential for normal vegetative growth and transition to flowering. Plant Phys 135:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahl V, Ponnu J, Schlereth A et al (2013) Regulation of flowering by trehalose-6-phosphate signaling in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 339:704–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang Z, Sinclair T, Zhu M et al (2012) Temperature effect on transpiration response of maize plants to vapour pressure deficit. Environm Exp Bot 78:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar