MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280503572 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2022-0026

Effects of different light-emitting diode qualities on the growth and photosynthetic characteristics of <i>Spathiphyllum floribundum</i>

2022· article· en· W4280503572 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yinglong Song, Wenqian Shang, Zheng Wang, Songlin He, Liyun Shi, Yuxiao Shen, Xueyuan Lou, Yuke Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosynthesisBotanyBlue lightLight intensityPigmentHorticultureBiologyMaterials scienceChemistryOpticsOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spathiphyllum floribundum (Linden &amp; André) N.E.Br. is an important indoor flower species. Thus, optimizing its growth by regulating the light quality under indoor low-light conditions may be critical for generating high-quality flowers. In this study, the effects of the following six light-quality treatments on peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities in two S. floribundum cultivars (“Sweet Chico” and “Queen”) were analyzed: monochromatic light comprising 100% red (R, 657 nm) or 100% blue (B, 450 nm) light, a combination of R and B lights [80% R + 20% B (8:2), 70% R + 30% B (7:3), and 60% R + 40% B (6:4)], and white light. The light treatments were performed using light-emitting diodes. The light intensity and photoperiod were set to 45 ± 2 µmol·m −2 ·s −1 and 14 h·day −1 , respectively. The results of this study revealed that an appropriate R:B light ratio may lead to increased pigment contents, thereby increasing the synthesis and accumulation of photosynthetic products, which will result in increased stress resistance and enhanced growth. These findings provide the basis for future investigations on the growth and production of S. floribundum and other indoor ornamental plants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207