Development of Redroot Pigweed Is Influenced by Light Spectral Quality and Quantity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Light quantity (photosynthetic photon flux density, PPFD) and quality (red:far‐red ratio, R:FR) may affect phenological development of weed species growing under a crop canopy. An indoor study was conducted to quantify the effects of incident PPFD and R:FR on development and dry matter accumulation of redroot pigweed ( Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Pigweed was grown in growth cabinets from the one‐leaf stage to the initiation of seed set under three different PPFD/R:FR treatments: (i) high PPFD (550 μmol m −2 s −1 ) and high R:FR (1.4) (HH), (ii) low PPFD (180 μmol m −2 s −1 ) and high R:FR (1.4) (LH), and (iii) low PPFD (180 μmol m −2 s −1 ) and low R:FR (0.8) (LL). The experiment was undertaken at 12‐ and 16‐h daylengths with three replications. Rate of leaf appearance (RLA) was accelerated with an increase in PPFD (HH vs. LH) at both daylengths. The FR enrichment (LL) negated the effect of low PPFD on RLA under the 12‐h but not under the 16‐h daylength. Low PPFD delayed the occurrence of floral primordia, flowering and initiation of seed set. Plant height was a result of the complementary effects of PPFD and R:FR. Total dry matter accumulation and partitioning, with the exception of dry matter accumulation to the stem, were influenced by PPFD only. Results of this study show that both light quality and quantity influence the phenology of pigweed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".