Evaluation of Four Lamp Types for the Production of Tomato Plants in Controlled Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the performance of four newly developed high-intensity-discharge lamp types on plant growth and production, tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Tradiro F 1 ) plants were grown indoors under 100% artificial lighting for 17 weeks. The four lamp types were: high-pressure sodium high output [HPS(HO)], high-pressure sodium standard [HPS(STD)], metal halide warm deluxe [MH(WDX)] and metal halide cool deluxe [MH(CDX)]. All the lamps tested were 1000 W. HPS(HO) had the highest electrical energy use efficiency (EUE) (0.98 μmol·m –2 ·s –1 ·W –1 at 40 cm directly under the lamp); HPS(STD), MH(WDX) and MH(CDX) had 93%, 72% and 61% of the EUE of the HPS(HO), respectively. The photosynthetically active radiation ( PAR ) outputs of different lamp types had the following order: HPS(HO) > HPS(STD) > MH(WDX) > MH(CDX). The percentage red of PAR of the four tested lamp types had the same order as above, but the percentage blue of PAR of these lamp types had exactly the opposite order. As a result, plants growing under the two HPS lamp types were taller and flowered and fruited earlier than plants under the two MH lamp types. Chlorophyll content index was generally greater in leaves under MH lamps than in leaves under HPS lamps. We recommend that the HPS lamp be used for flowering and fruiting crops and the MH lamp would be better used for foliar and compact crops.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".