In the light of new greenhouse technologies: 1. Plant‐mediated effects of artificial lighting on arthropods and tritrophic interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review describes the effects of the current and emerging lighting technologies on plants, and the plant‐mediated effects on herbivorous and beneficial arthropods in high‐technology year‐round greenhouse production, where light quality, quantity and photoperiod differ from the natural environment. The spectrum provided by the current lighting technology, high‐pressure sodium lamp (HPSL), differs considerably from that of solar radiation. The major plant‐mediated effects on arthropods were predicted to result from (a) extended photoperiods and lower light integrals, (b) the attenuation of ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, particularly UV‐B, (c) the high red: far‐red (R : FR) ratio and lower blue : red (B : R) in comparison with solar radiation and (d) the high proportion of yellow wavelengths during winter months. Of these light factors (a–d) (ceteris paribus), (a) and (b) were hypothesised to result in increased performance of herbivores in winter months, whereas the high R : FR ratio decreased herbivore performance or not affected it, at least when interlights are used. The predictions obtained on the basis of this review are also discussed in relation to the modifying factors prevailing in these production environments: enriched CO2 levels, high nutrient amounts, optimised irrigation and temperatures optimal for plants' needs. Based on the carbon/nitrogen and growth/differentiation balance theories, these modifying factors tend to produce plants that allocate most resources to growth at the expense of defensive secondary metabolism and physicochemical defensive structures. At the end, this review discusses knowledge gaps and future research prospects, in which light‐emitting diodes, the emerging lighting technology, play an important role by enabling the targeted manipulation of plant responses to different wavelengths.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".