Bruce Bugbee

Prof. Bruce Bugbee


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

21Years (2006-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 June 2014 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JNJacob A. Nelson
Jacob A. Nelson
BBBruce Bugbee
Bruce Bugbee
Lighting technologies for plant growth are improving rapidly, providing numerous options for supplemental lighting in greenhouses. Here we report the photosynthetic (400–700 nm) photon efficiency and photon distribution pattern of two double-ended HPS fixtures, five mogul-base HPS fixtures, ten LED fixtures, three ceramic metal halide fixtures, and two fluorescent fixtures. The two most efficient LED and the two most efficient double-ended HPS fixtures had nearly identical efficiencies at 1.66 to 1.70 micromoles per joule. These four fixtures represent a dramatic improvement over the 1.02 micromoles per joule efficiency of the mogul-base HPS fixtures that are in common use. The best ceramic metal halide and fluorescent fixtures had efficiencies of 1.46 and 0.95 micromoles per joule, respectively. We also calculated the initial capital cost of fixtures per photon delivered and determined that LED fixtures cost five to ten times more than HPS fixtures. The five-year electric plus fixture cost per mole of photons is thus 2.3 times higher for LED fixtures, due to high capital costs. Compared to electric costs, our analysis indicates that the long-term maintenance costs are small for both technologies. If widely spaced benches are a necessary part of a production system, the unique ability of LED fixtures to efficiently focus photons on specific areas can be used to improve the photon capture by plant canopies. Our analysis demonstrates, however, that the cost per photon delivered is higher in these systems, regardless of fixture category. The lowest lighting system costs are realized when an efficient fixture is coupled with effective canopy photon capture.

30 March 2020 in Horticulture Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PKPaul Kusuma
Paul Kusuma
PPP. Morgan Pattison
P. Morgan Pattison
BBBruce Bugbee
Bruce Bugbee
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have enabled a historic increase in the conversion of electric energy to photons, but this is approaching a physical limit. The the

17 August 2022 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NLNoah James Langenfeld
Noah James Langenfeld
DPDaniel Fernandez Pinto
Daniel Fernandez Pinto
Jim FaustJim Faust
Jim Faust
RHRoyal Heins
Royal Heins
BBBruce Bugbee
Bruce Bugbee
Mass balance principles are a cornerstone of efficient fertilizer use and can be utilized to optimize plant nutrition without discarding or leaching solution. Here, we describe the maintenance of closed hydroponic and soilless substrate systems based on mass balance. Water removed by transpiration is restored with solution that replaces the nutrients that were taken up with the water. The concentration of nutrients in this refill/irrigation solution is determined by multiplying the optimal concentration of each nutrient in plant tissue by the water-use efficiency (WUE; ratio of dry mass to water transpired). Optimal leaf nutrient concentrations are well established, but WUE in controlled environments varies widely and is less well characterized. Elevated CO2 increases photosynthesis and demand for nutrients, but partially closes stomata and reduces transpiration; so high CO2 dramatically increases WUE. The concentration of the refill/irrigation solution must be adjusted to account for a two-fold range of WUE, from 3 g L−1 in ambient CO2 in lower humidity, to 6 g L−1 in elevated CO2 in higher humidity. WUE and nutrient requirements vary during the vegetative and reproductive stages of growth, and adjustment of the solution over the lifecycle can be beneficial. Measurement of solution electrical conductivity (EC) is helpful, but if the solution is appropriate, low EC usually means healthy plants and active nutrient uptake. The ammonium to nitrate ratio is critical to pH management. We have applied these principles across multiple species and environments to achieve long-term, steady-state nutrient concentrations with no discharge or leaching of solution.

8 October 2015 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JNJacob A Nelson
Jacob A Nelson
BBBruce Bugbee
Bruce Bugbee
The use of LED technology is commonly assumed to result in significantly cooler leaf temperatures than high pressure sodium technology. To evaluate the magnitude of this effect, we measured radiation incident to and absorbed by a leaf under four radiation sources: clear sky sunlight in the field, sunlight in a glass greenhouse, and indoor plants under either high pressure sodium or light emitting diodes. We then applied a common mechanistic energy-balance model to compare leaf to air temperature difference among the radiation sources and environments. At equal photosynthetic photon flux, our results indicate that the effect of plant water status and leaf evaporative cooling is much larger than the effect of radiation source. If plants are not water stressed, leaves in all four radiation sources were typically within 2°C of air temperature. Under clear sky conditions, cool sky temperatures mean that leaves in the field are always cooler than greenhouse or indoor plants-when photosynthetic photon flux, stomatal conductance, wind speed, vapor pressure deficit, and leaf size are equivalent. As water stress increases and cooling via transpiration decreases, leaf temperatures can increase well above air temperature. In a near-worst case scenario of water stress and low wind, our model indicates that leaves would increase 6°, 8°, 10°, and 12°C above air temperature under field, LED, greenhouse, and HPS scenarios, respectively. Because LED fixtures emit much of their heat through convection rather than radiative cooling, they result in slightly cooler leaf temperatures than leaves in greenhouses and under HPS fixtures, but the effect of LED technology on leaf temperature is smaller than is often assumed. Quantifying the thermodynamic outputs of these lamps, and their physiological consequences, will allow both researchers and the horticulture industry to make informed decisions when employing these technologies.

27 March 2021 in Plants
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PKPaul Kusuma
Paul Kusuma
BSBoston Swan
Boston Swan
BBBruce Bugbee
Bruce Bugbee
The photon flux in the green wavelength region is relatively enriched in shade and the photon flux in the blue region is selectively filtered. In sole source lighting environments, increasing the fraction of blue typically decreases stem elongation and leaf expansion, and smaller leaves reduce photon capture and yield. Photons in the green region reverse these blue reductions through the photoreceptor cryptochrome in Arabidopsis thaliana, but studies in other species have not consistently shown the benefits of photons in the green region on leaf expansion and growth. Spectral effects can interact with total photon flux. Here, we report the effect of the fraction of photons in the blue (10 to 30%) and green (0 to 50%) regions at photosynthetic photon flux densities of 200 and 500 µmol m−2 s−1 in lettuce, cucumber and tomato. As expected, increasing the fraction of photons in the blue region consistently decreased leaf area and dry mass. By contrast, large changes in the fraction of photons in the green region had minimal effects on leaf area and dry mass in lettuce and cucumber. Photons in the green region were more potent at a lower fraction of photons in the blue region. Photons in the green region increased stem and petiole length in cucumber and tomato, which is a classic shade avoidance response. These results suggest that high-light crop species might respond to the fraction of photons in the green region with either shade tolerance (leaf expansion) or shade avoidance (stem elongation).

1 March 2006 in Journal of Environmental Quality
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AHAmelia Henry
Amelia Henry
WDWilliam Doucette
William Doucette
JNJeanette Marie Norton
Jeanette Marie Norton
SJScott Jones
Scott Jones
JCJulie Chard
Julie Chard
BBBruce Bugbee
Bruce Bugbee