Effect of Different Combinations of Red and Blue LED Light on Growth Characteristics and Pigment Content of In Vitro Tomato Plantlets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the growth characteristics and pigment content of tomato plantlets grown under various ratios of red (R) (661 nm) and blue (B) (449 nm) LED light. In this study, three different ratios of R and B (RB) light such as 5:01, 10:01, and 19:01 along with R (100%) were used. The photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and photoperiod of the growth chamber was 120 ± 5 μmol m−2s−1 and 16/8 h (day/night), respectively. Tomato plantlets were cultured for six weeks in the growth chamber. It was shown that tomato plantlets had higher photosynthesis rate, higher pigments content, higher growth characteristics (e.g., number of leaves, leaf area, shoot number, root number, root length, dry, and fresh mass), and greater surviving rate under the R:B = 10:01 ratio among the treatments. The plantlets showed at least a threefold decrease in photosynthesis rate, as well as a significant abnormal stem elongation when grown under 100% R light. It is concluded that the RB ratio of 10:01 showed excellent performance in all growth parameters. This result has shown that the optimum lighting environment improves tomato plantlet cultures in vitro.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it