That's my question. Could you not just put a box over the plant for 5 minutes? Even if it needed to be a more elaborate system to simulate the correct rate of light falling and rising, it would surely be easier than waiting for an eclipse.
That's how biologists study changes and shift in diurnal cycle and circadian rhythm with pretty much every organisms. Rapid eclipse-like changed have been studied in automated incubation chamber. And all this was already known, and was part of my biology text book 20 years ago. That scientific news in NYT is the new normal sensationalism. The plants aren't really shocked. They've dealt with that for millions of year. It's not like they can escape, or turn on the artificial light bulb.
There is an argument for posting articles on established science more often (or well, ever) in the news. Not everybody paid attention in biology class and there is a benefit of not having to post reversal when the next cutting edge article comes out with opposite findings.
"BOATS EXPLAINED: Centuries-Old Problem Solved By Bathtub Nudist"
They could have lost that production from being stepped on or fed on, or from unseasonably cloudy or rainy weather. Even for a plant 14% loss every few years feels like a no big deal. The macro effects are certainly interesting area of research.
