Combined effects of supplementary light and CO<sub>2</sub>on rose growth and the production of good quality cut flowers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of supplementary lighting with high-pressure sodium (HSP) lamps alone or in combination with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) on the growth, yield, and flower stem quality of two rose cultivars (‘Loving Heart’ and ‘Top Grace’) were studied. Compared to natural lighting (control), supplementary lighting alone was beneficial for plant growth, and it increased plant height, stem diameter, and the number of axillary shoots. Furthermore, increases in flower stem yield (>70 cm), flower stem diameter, fresh weight, and the number of petals per flower were also observed. The combination of supplementary lighting and CO 2 significantly enhanced all of the studied parameters compared to supplementary lighting alone. Moreover, stomatal density and chlorophyll fluorescence were seemingly affected by either supplementary lighting alone or in combination with CO 2 . This is the first study to examine the beneficial effects of combined supplementary lighting and CO 2 conditions, and the resulting information is essential to rose growers and commercial production.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it