Blue and red LED lighting effects on plant biomass, stomatal conductance, and metabolite content in nine tomato genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collection of nine tomato genotypes was chosen based on their diversity, phylogeny, availability of genome information, and agronomic traits. The objective of the study was to characterize the effect of red and blue LED (light-emitting diode) lighting on physiological, morphological, developmental, and chemical parameters. Two LED light treatments were imposed: (1): 100% red and (2): 88% red/12% blue (peak emission at 662 and 456 nm for red and blue light, respectively). The combination of blue and red LED lighting increased total dry matter in seven of the nine genotypes compared to red. Upward or downward leaf curling was observed in all genotypes in the 100% red treatment. Stomatal conductance was not affected much by additional blue light, but blue light increased chlorophyll and flavonol contents in three genotypes. The exposure of tomato plants to a combination of red and blue LEDs alleviated leaf morphological abnormalities and enhanced plant biomass, and variably affected stomatal conductance and secondary metabolism compared to red light alone.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".