Effect of supplemental lighting on primary gas exchanges of Chrysanthemum × morifolium Ramat cultivar White Reagan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flower greenhouse production is reduced in winter, which is due to the short photoperiod and low light levels. Studies indicate that LEDs could increase the quality and yield of ornamental crops. However, there is very little research about LED and HPS effects on chrysanthemums during long day (LD) and short day (SD). Plants were grown in the research greenhouse and growth chambers at the University of Guelph. Plants were subjected to a 16h photoperiod (LD) and a subsequent 12h photoperiod (SD). Four different light treatments were compared: 1) Natural light (Amb), 2) Amb supplemented with Red/white LEDs, 3) Amb supplemented with Red/blue LEDs and 4) Amb supplemented with HPS. Plant height, leaf area, dry matter of different parts, SPAD reading, and leaf and whole-plant level photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency and daily carbon gain during both long day and short day periods were measured. We concluded that chrysanthemums showed different response to light spectrum quality between LD and SD at the leaf level but not the whole plant level.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".