Narrowband Blue LEDs with Different Peak Wavelengths Similarly Promote Shade Avoidance Responses and Have Greater Promotion Effects Than Ultraviolet A and Far Red in Two Species of Microgreens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our previous studies showed pure blue (B) spectra from LEDs can promote shade avoidance responses (SARs). However, it is unknown whether SARs vary among different peak wavelengths (λpeak) of B or how they compare with other photomorphologically-important wavebands, such as ultraviolet-A and far-red. To answer these questions, mustard (Brassica juncea, ‘Ruby Streaks’) and arugula (Brassica eruca, ‘Rocket’) seedlings, grown to the cotyledon unfolding stage under the following narrowband spectrum treatments: UVA (λpeak = 385 nm), B1 (λpeak = 404 nm), B2 (λpeak = 440 nm), B3 (λpeak = 455 nm), and FR (λpeak = 730 nm). Both red (R, λpeak = 660 nm) and dark (D) were used as control treatments. The spectrum treatments were provided at 50 μmol m−2 s−1 on a continuous basis. There were no differences among the B treatments except for reduced mustard fresh weight (FWt) in B3. Compared with R, the B treatments promoted hypocotyl elongation, reduced cotyledon size, and increased petiole length in arugula and B1 increased petiole length in mustard. Compared with the B treatments, UVA inhibited hypocotyl and petiole elongation, similar to or greater than R in both species. Compared with the other LED treatments, seedlings grown under FR generally had the lowest hypocotyl and petiole elongation and the smallest cotyledons. Compared to the LED treatments, D substantially promoted hypocotyl elongation and reduced cotyledon size, except compared to FR in arugula. Among the spectrum treatments, the three B treatments had the greatest SAR promotion effects in both species. Despite having the lowest phytochrome activity, FR inhibited SARs normally associated with high FR environments. Legacy parameters used to estimate SAR-promoting effects of spectrum treatments may not be appropriate for characterizing narrowband spectra from LEDs – new approaches must be developed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".