From sun to shade: Cultivar-specific plasticity of robusta coffee in diverse light environments

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Apr 20, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.65764/tjas.2025.266235
Keywords:
Coffea canephora Phenotypic plasticity Shading RDPI Photosynthesis

Main Article Content

Veera Klaipuk
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand; Horticultural Research Institute, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Poonpipope Kasemsap
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Prasart Kermanee
Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Patchareeya Boonkorkaew
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

Abstract

Background and Objective: Coffee production faces increasing challenges from climate variability, particularly light availability, while the adaptability of robusta coffee to shaded environments remains insufficiently understood compared to arabica. This study evaluated phenotypic plasticity in five robusta coffee cultivars across contrasting light conditions using morpho-anatomical, physiological, and biochemical traits, with the Relative Distance Plasticity Index (RDPI) used to quantify trait responsiveness and identify adaptive strategies.
Methodology: One-year-old plants of five robusta coffee cultivars, namely Chumphon 2 (CH2), Chumphon 4 (CH4), R2017–1 (R–1), R2017–2 (R–2), and a local Thai variety (LO), were grown under three shading levels (0%, 50%, and 80%) in a factorial design (shade × cultivar) with five replicates, where individual plants served as experimental units. Morphological, anatomical, physiological, photochemical, and pigment traits were measured, and phenotypic plasticity was quantified using RDPI. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05) in RStudio (v. 2022.02.3) using the “Agricolae” and “Plasticity” packages.
Main Results: Physiological/biochemical traits exhibited greater plasticity (RDPI = 0.16–0.25) than morpho-anatomical traits (0.10–0.13). Among cultivars, CH2 showed the highest plasticity (0.25), followed by LO (0.21), R–2 (0.20), and R–1 (0.19), whereas CH4 exhibited the lowest responsiveness (0.16). Shading significantly modified structural traits, increasing specific leaf area and reducing leaf thickness, palisade thickness, and stomatal density (P < 0.05). Physiological responses were significantly affected (P < 0.05), with increased photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) and chlorophyll content, alongside reductions in dark respiration (Rd) and light compensation point (LCP).
Conclusions: Phenotypic plasticity in robusta coffee was trait-specific and cultivar-dependent. Cultivars with higher RDPI values, particularly R–2 and CH2, exhibited broader responsiveness across light environments, whereas CH4 showed comparatively limited plasticity. These findings support the use of quantitative plasticity indices to guide cultivar selection in diversified coffee production systems.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 58 No. 4 (2025): October-December
Section
Research Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Ameztegui, A. 2017. Plasticity: An R package to determine several plasticity indices. GitHub repository. Available Source: https://github.com/ameztegui/Plasticity.

DaMatta, F.M., C.P. Ronchi, M. Maestri and R.S. Barros. 2007. Ecophysiology of coffee growth and production. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 19(4): 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202007000400014.

Fahl, J.I., M.L.C. Carelli, J. Vega and A.C. Magalhães. 1994. Nitrogen and irradiance levels affecting net photosynthesis and growth of young coffee plants (Coffea arabica L.). J. Hortic. Sci. 69(1): 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1994.11515262.

Gratani, L. 2014. Plant phenotypic plasticity in response to environmental factors. Adv. Bot. 2014(1): 208747. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/208747.

Hughes, N.M. and W.K. Smith. 2007. Seasonal photosynthesis and anthocyanin production in 10 broadleaf evergreen species. Funct. Plant Biol. 34(12): 1072–1079. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP07205.

Jha, S., C.M. Bacon, S.M. Philpott, V. E. Méndez, P. Läderach and R.A. Rice. 2014. Shade coffee: Update on a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience. 64(5): 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu038.

Lambers, H., F.S. Chapin and T.L. Pons. 2008. Plant Physiological Ecology. 2nd Edition. Springer, New York, USA.

Lichtenthaler, H.K. and F. Babani. 2022. Contents of photosynthetic pigments and ratios of chlorophyll a/b and chlorophylls to carotenoids (a+b)/(x+c) in C4 plants as compared to C3 plants. Photosynthetica. 60(1): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.32615/ps.2021.041.

Matos, F.S., R. Wolfgramm, F.V. Gonçalves, P.C. Cavatte, M.C. Ventrella and F.M. DaMatta. 2009. Phenotypic plasticity in response to light in the coffee tree. Environ. Exp. Bot. 67(2): 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.06.018.

Mendiburu, F.D. 2006. Agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research [Dataset]. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation.

Morais, H., C.J. Marur, P.H. Caramori, A.M. de Arruda Ribeiro and J.C. Gomes. 2003. Physiological characteristics and growth of coffee plants grown under shade of pigeonpea and unshaded. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 38(10): 1131–1137. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2003.v38.6682.

Niinemets, U. 2007. Photosynthesis and resource distribution through plant canopies. Plant. Cell Environ. 30(9): 1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01683.x.

Perfecto, I., R.A. Rice, R. Greenberg and M.E. Van der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: A disappearing refuge for biodiversity: Shade coffee plantations can contain as much biodiversity as forest habitats. BioScience. 46(8): 598–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312989.

Phumkokrux, N. 2021. Köppen-Geiger climate system classification and forecasting in Thailand. Folia Geogr. 63(2): 110–122.

Porra, R.J., W.A. Thompson and P.E. Kriedemann. 1989. Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: Verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. Bioenerg. 975(3): 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-2728(89)80347-0.

RStudio Team. 2022. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio. PBC. Available Source: http://www.rstudio.com/. July 15, 2024.

Thornley, J.H. and I.R. Johnson. 1990. Plant and Crop Modelling: A Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. p. 660.

Valladares, F. and Ü. Niinemets. 2008. Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39: 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173506.

Valladares, F., D. Sánchez-Gómez and M.A. Zavala. 2006. Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: Bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J. Ecol. 94(6): 1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01176.x.

Valladares, F., E. Gianoli and J.M. Gómez. 2007. Ecological limits to plant phenotypic plasticity. New Phytol. 176: 749–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02275.x.

Valladares, F., S. Arrieta, I. Aranda, D. Lorenzo, D. Sánchez-Gómez, D. Tena, F. Suárez and J.A. Pardos. 2005. Shade tolerance, photoinhibition sensitivity and phenotypic plasticity of Ilex aquifolium in continental Mediterranean sites. Tree Physiol. 25(8): 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.8.1041.

Wellburn, A.R. 1994. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 144(3): 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)81192-2.