MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984843450 · doi:10.1117/12.2061236

Impact of LED irradiance on plant photosynthesis and action spectrum of plantlet

2014· article· en· W1984843450 on OpenAlexaff
Most Tahera Naznin, Mark Lefsrud

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosynthesisPlantletAction spectrumIrradianceLight-emitting diodeBlue lightHorticultureBotanyWavelengthRed lightMaterials scienceChemistryOptoelectronicsPhysicsBiologyOpticsTissue culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light emitting diodes (LEDs) can be selected to target the wavelengths absorbed by plantlets, enabling the users to customize the wavelengths of light required for maximum production. The primary purpose of this experiment was to test the effect of different ratios of red to blue LEDs on tomato plantlets photosynthetic action spectrum. Four light treatments including: red LED (100%) and three ratios of red (661 nm) to blue (449 nm) light (5:1, 10:1 and 19:1) at 60 umol m<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> for this study. The tomato plantlets cultured without blue light showed a three and half-fold decrease in photosynthesis rate. The highest photosynthetic action spectrum was observed at 10:1 but was not significantly difference from the 5:1 and the lowest action spectrum was observed at 100% red LED light. The tomato plantlets grown without the blue light showed a single-fold increase in plantlet height but were not significantly different from the 10:1 red to blue LED light. This research will allow for improved selection of LED lighting for plant tissue culture.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207