Light-emitting Diodes Can Replace High-pressure Sodium Lighting for Cut Gerbera Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A greenhouse study was undertaken to investigate whether light-emitting diode (LED) technology can be used to replace high-pressure sodium (HPS) lighting for cut gerbera production during Canada’s traditional supplemental lighting (SL) season (November to March). The study was carried out at the University of Guelph’s research greenhouse, using concurrent replications of SL treatments within the same growing environment. LED (85% red, 15% blue) and HPS treatment plots were set up to provide equal amounts of supplemental photosynthetically active radiation ( PAR ) at bench level. This setup was used to assess the production of three cultivars of cut gerbera ( Gerbera jamesonii H. Bolus ex Hook.f): Acapulco, Heatwave, and Terra Saffier. There were no treatment differences in SL intensity, with average SL photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) and daily light integral (DLI) of 55.9 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 and 2.3 mol·m −2 ·d −1 , respectively. Flowers harvested from the LED treatment had a 1.9% larger flower diameter in ‘Acapulco’; 4.2% shorter and 3.8% longer stems in ‘Heatwave’ and ‘Terra Saffier’, respectively; and 7.7% and 8.6% higher fresh weights for ‘Acapulco’ and ‘Terra Saffier’, respectively, compared with flowers harvested from the HPS treatment. There were no differences in accumulated total or marketable flower harvests for any of the cultivars. The vase life of ‘Acapulco’ flowers grown under the LED treatment was 2.7 d longer than those grown under the HPS treatment, but there were no SL treatment effects on water uptake for any of the cultivars during the vase life trials. There were no SL treatment effects on specific leaf area for any of the cultivars. There were only minimal treatment differences in leaf, soil, and air temperatures. Cut gerbera crops grown with under LED SL had equivalent or better production and crop quality metrics compared with crops grown under HPS SL.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".