Morphology and Flowering Responses of Four Bedding Plant Species to a Range of Red to Far Red Ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In greenhouse ornamental crop production, bedding plants grown below high densities of hanging baskets (HBs) tend to be of lower quality. Hanging basket crops can decrease the red to far red ratio (R:FR) of the growing environment below; however, the extent to which decreased R:FR affects plant morphology and flowering of the lower-level crops is unknown. The present study examined effects of R:FR on morphology and flowering of marigold ‘Antigua Orange’ ( Tagetes erecta ), petunia ‘Duvet Red’ ( Petunia × hybrida ), calibrachoa ‘Kabloom Deep Blue’ ( Calibrachoa × hybrida ), and geranium ‘Pinto Premium Salmon’ ( Pelargonium × hortorum ). Five R:FR light treatments were provided ranging from R:FR 1.1 (representing unfiltered sunlight) to R:FR 0.7 (representing shaded conditions under HBs) using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in growth chambers, each with identical photosynthetically active radiation ( PAR ) (400–700 nm) and FR added to achieve the target R:FR ratio. Two experiments using the same R:FR treatments were conducted with day/night temperature regimes of 20 °C/18 °C and 25 °C/21 °C, respectively. In the second experiment, a fluorescent light treatment was included. The results of the second experiment were more dramatic than the first, where reducing R:FR from 1.1 to 0.7 increased height by 11%, 22%, and 32% in marigold, petunia, and calibrachoa, respectively, and increased petiole length in geranium by 10%. Compared with R:FR 1.1, the R:FR 0.7 shortened the time to the appearance of first flower bud by 2 days in marigold, whereas flowering was minimally affected in other species. Compared with pooled data from the LED treatments, fluorescent light increased relative chlorophyll content for all species, reduced height in marigold, petunia, calibrachoa, and geranium by 26%, 67%, 60%, and 48%, and reduced stem dry weight by 28%, 39%, 21%, and 31%, respectively. The differences in morphology observed under fluorescent light compared with LED R:FR treatments indicate that light quality manipulation is a potential alternative to chemical growth regulators in controlled environments such as greenhouses and growth chambers.
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".