Continuous Light Does Not Compromise Growth and Yield in Mini-Cucumber Greenhouse Production with Supplemental LED Light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous lighting (CL, 24 h) can reduce the light intensity/light capital costs used to achieve the desired amount of light for year-round greenhouse vegetable production in comparison to short photoperiods of lighting. However, growth under CL has led to leaf injury characterized by chlorosis unless a thermoperiod or alternating light spectrum during CL is used. To date, there is no literature relating to how cucumbers (Cucumissativus) respond to CL with LEDs in a full production cycle. Here, we evaluated a mini-cucumber cv. “Bonwell” grown under 4 supplemental lighting strategies: Treatment 1 (T1, the control) was 16 h of combined red light and blue light followed by 8 h of darkness. Treatment 2 (T2) had continuous (24 h) red light and blue light. Treatment 3 (T3) was 16 h of red light followed by 8 h of blue light. Treatment 4 (T4) was 12 h of red light followed by 12 h of blue light. All treatments had a supplemental daily light integral (DLI) of ~10 mol m−2 d−1. Plants from all treatments showed similar growth characteristics throughout the production cycle. However, plants grown under all three CL treatments had higher chlorophyll concentrations from leaves at the top of the canopy when compared to T1. The overall photosynthetic capacity, light use efficiency, and photosynthetic parameters related to light response curves (i.e., dark respiration, light compensation point, quantum yield, and photosynthetic maximum), as well as the quantum yield of photosystem II (PSII; Fv/Fm) were similar among the treatments. Plants grown under all CL treatments produced a similar yield compared to the control treatment (T1). These results indicate that mini-cucumber cv. “Bonwell” is tolerant to CL, and CL is a viable and economical lighting strategy for mini-cucumber production.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".