Dynamic versus Concurrent Lighting with Red and Blue Light-emitting Diodes as the Sole Light Source Can Potentially Improve Campanula Stock Plant Morphology for Cutting Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short campanula ( Campanula portenschlagiana ‘PGM Get MEE’ ® ) stock plants present a difficulty in machine-harvesting of cuttings. Light adjustment may be an effective approach to mediate plant elongation. Two experiments were performed to 1) investigate whether short-term (five weeks) daily 24-h dynamic lighting (DL) with red and blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs) can promote elongation without inducing flowering, and 2) explore whether DL can be used to modify stock plant morphology to improve the cutting quality and rooting success in a controlled environment. Two lighting treatments were used: concurrent lighting (CL) with red (85%) and blue (15%) LEDs (RB) at 100 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 and DL with red (170 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 ), blue (30 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 ), and RB (100 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 ) LEDs sequentially at three different lighting stages, respectively, in both experiments. In Expt. 1, at final harvest of stock plants, the side branches were longer under DL compared with CL, but the five (= 2 + 2 + 1) weeks of 24-h daily lighting resulted in visible flower buds under both treatments. Based on the results of Expt. 1, a second experiment (Expt. 2) was conducted with the same cultivar and experimental conditions, but with a shorter photoperiod (10 h·d −1 ) for 11 (= 8 + 2 + 1) weeks. In Expt. 2, at final harvest, DL compared with CL caused more upright side branches, and reduced the dry biomass of side branches with one branching order and leaf chlorophyll content. However, the harvested cutting quality and rooting success were similar between both treatments. In both experiments, side branch number under DL was greater compared with CL at the end of the first lighting stage. Stock plants under DL were taller from the second lighting stage on to final harvest compared with CL, and the final heights of stock plants under DL met the target for machine-harvest in both experiments. Therefore, if the lighting strategy is further optimized, DL can potentially benefit controlled-environment production of campanula cuttings.
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 | 0.001 | 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".