The Power of Far-Red Light at Night: Photomorphogenic, Physiological, and Yield Response in Pepper During Dynamic 24 Hour Lighting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplemental light is needed during the winter months in high latitude regions to achieve the desired daily light integral (DLI) (photoperiod × intensity) for greenhouse pepper ( Capsicum annuum ) production. Peppers tend to have short internodes causing fruit stacking and higher labor time for plant maintenance when grown under supplemental light. Far-red light can increase internode length, and our previous study on tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) also discovered monochromatic blue light at night during continuous lighting (CL, 24 h) increased stem elongation. Furthermore, the use of low-intensity, long photoperiod lighting can reduce light fixture costs and overall electricity costs due to lower power prices during the night. Therefore, we investigated the use of blue and/or far-red light during the night period of CL to increase stem elongation. Three pepper cultivars with different internode lengths/growing characteristics (‘Maureno,’ ‘Gina,’ and ‘Eurix’) were used to investigate the effects on plant morphology in a short experiment, and one cultivar ‘Maureno’ was used in a long experiment to assess the impact on fruit yield. The five lighting treatments that were used are as follows: 16 h of white light during the day followed by either 8 h of darkness (16W – control), white light (24W), blue light only (16W + 8B), blue + far-red light (16W + 8BFR), or far-red light only (16W + 8FR). Calculated nighttime phytochrome photostationary state (PSS) was 0.833, 0.566, 0.315, and 0.186 for 24W, 16W + 8B, 16W + 8BFR, and 16W + 8FR respectively. All five treatments had the same DLI in photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and far-red light. The 16W + 8BFR and 16W + 8FR treatments significantly increased internode length compared to 16W and 24W but neither was more impactful than the other. The 16W + 8B treatment also increased internode length but to a lesser extent than 16W + 8BFR and 16W + 8FR. This indicates that a nighttime PSS of 0.315 is sufficient to maximize stem elongation. Both 16W + 8B and 16W + 8BFR drove photosynthesis during the nighttime supporting a similar yield compared to 16W. Therefore, 16W + 8BFR is the most potential lighting strategy as it can lead to a greater reduction in the light fixture and electrical costs while maintaining yield and enhancing internode length.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".