Low red: Far-red light ratio causes faster in vitro flowering in lentil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial light in growth chambers typically has a higher red to far-red (R:FR) ratio compared with natural light. This higher ratio may delay flowering and reduce plant height in some long-day plants. Modification of light spectral quality to lower than the critical threshold of R:FR for a given plant species can have important implications with respect to plant structural and physiological traits. The objective of this study was to accelerate lentil (Lens culinaris) flower induction in growth chambers re-fitted with T5 fluorescent bulbs, using supplemental FR bulbs to re-balance the R:FR ratio. Lentil cultivars CDC Greenland and CDC Maxim were grown under three light sources differing in R:FR, namely light emitting diodes (LED; R:FR = 3.09), T5 fluorescent bulbs (R:FR = 5.6), and T5 supplemented with near far-red bulbs (R:FR = 3.1). All three light sources provided 500 µmol m −2 s −1 of photosynthetic photon flux (PPF). Lentil floral induction was significantly affected by the R:FR ratio. Plants grown under R:FR ratios of 3.1 or less flowered 10–11 d earlier than plants grown under an R:FR ratio of 5.6. Both cultivars had the same response to R:FR ratio in terms of days to flowering and flowering rate.
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".