Analysis of Growth Parameters for Crop Vegetables under Broad and Narrow LED Spectra and Fluorescent Light Tubes at Different PPFs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several physiological and yield parameters were evaluated in lettuce plants, cv. ‘Trocadero’, while growing at four different photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) (70, 120, 250 and 400 ± 10 µmol m-2 s-1), under four light spectra, white (W), red (R) and blue (B) Light-Emitting Diode (LED) lamps and cool white fluorescent tubes (FL). Yield parameters were also evaluated on spinach, turnip and radish, growing under identical light spectra but using a single PPF (340 ± 10 µmol m-2 s-1). Lettuce development was impaired at PPFs below 250 µmol m-2 s-1 for all tested spectra. At higher PPFs (250 and 400 ± 10 µmol m-2 s-1), for the two broad spectra tested (W LEDs and FL light), no significant differences were registered on all physiological and yield parameters evaluated. On all situations W LEDs performed, at least, as good as the FL light, indicating that actual W LEDs can efficiently replace traditional light sources, with all the inherent benefits, which include significant lower power consumption. For all species, narrow light spectra (R and B LEDs) proved not being able to provide normal plant development. Plants under R LEDs, although presenting, in some situations, a fresh weight higher than those achieved with the broad light spectra, always led to abnormal plant morphology, characterized by expanded petioles and leaf curling. B LEDs, in spite of promoting plant growth with normal morphology, frequently led to a lower number of leaves and consequently to a lower fresh weight.
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) | 0.000 | 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".