MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408573773 · doi:10.3390/agronomy15030732

Developmental Stages of Bell Pepper Influence the Response to Far-Red Light Supplements in a Controlled Environment

2025· article· en· W4408573773 on OpenAlexafffund
Awa Marina Mouliom-Ntapnze, Georges Yannick Fangue-Yapseu, Tagnon D. Missihoun

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsPepperFar-redBiologyBotanyRed lightHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Far-red (FR) additions to white or red/blue light resulted in improved dry biomass and fruit nutritional quality. Despite these positive effects, FR supplementation was also found to induce the abortion of flowers and fruits. We hypothesized that the timing and duration of the FR supplements determine the positive or negative effects of the FR supplement on the plant. To examine this hypothesis, we compared the effect of a gradient of FR supplements (5.5, 12, and 18.1 μmol m−2 s−1) on bell pepper plants (Capsicum annuum cv. Margrethe) when they were exposed to the FR supplements at the beginning of their vegetative growth phase to when FR supplementation only began at the generative phase. We found that 12 and 18.1 μmol m−2 s−1 of FR supplements resulted in a higher yield than 5.5 μmol m−2 s−1 of FR supplements, but FR supplementation from the onset of flowering delayed fruit ripening by 5–8 days and decreased fruit yield compared to FR supplementation that began at seedling transplantation. These results indicate that the positive effect of the FR supplements on the pepper plants of the cultivar Margrethe depends on the plant’s stages of development, and a much lower FR intensity may suffice to enhance growth and yield.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207