End-of-day Lighting with Different Red/Far-red Ratios Using Light-emitting Diodes Affects Plant Growth of Chrysanthemum × morifolium Ramat. ‘Coral Charm’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlling plant height without the use of plant growth retardants is one of the goals in future production of potted plants. Light quality with a low red to far-red ratio (R:FR) increases plant height. In this trial, the effects of light quality [R:FR ratio of 0.4, 0.7, and 2.4 (R = 600–700 nm, FR = 700–800 nm)] at the end of day were investigated on potted chrysanthemums using growth chambers. After a 9-h photoperiod, the 30-min end-of-day lighting was provided by light-emitting diodes at low irradiance by maintaining either red = 1 μmol·m −2 ·s −1 (R con ) or far-red = 1 μmol·m −2 ·s −1 (FR con ). After 3 weeks of end-of-day lighting, plants given the lowest end-of-day ratios (R:FR of 0.4 or 0.7) were taller than control plants (R:FR = 2.4). For low ratios of R:FR (0.4), the actual intensities of R and FR did not affect plant height, whereas for higher ratios of R:FR (0.7 and 2.4), plant height was greater for FR con than for R con . Leaf area of the lateral side shoots was lower for plants treated with an R:FR of 0.4 compared with those of controls. Dry weight, stem diameter, number of internodes, and number of lateral branches were unaffected by the end-of-day ratio.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".