MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788049446 · doi:10.5539/jps.v7n1p47

Analysis of Growth Parameters for Crop Vegetables under Broad and Narrow LED Spectra and Fluorescent Light Tubes at Different PPFs

2018· article· en· W2788049446 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Augusto Peixe, Hugo Leonardo Coelho Ribeiro, Augusto Ribeiro, M. C. L. Soares, Rui Machado, Ana Elisa Rato, Renato Alves Coelho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGrowth and nutrition in plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLight-emitting diodeSpectral lineFluorescenceYield (engineering)SpinachHorticulturePhotosynthesisChemistryBotanyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceBiologyOptoelectronicsOpticsPhysicsEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicGrowth and nutrition in plantsFrench-language works237,207