Effect of amber and low-pressure sodium lights supplemented with blue light on lettuce ( <i>Lactuca sativa</i> ) production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As food security concerns and controlled environment agriculture continue to grow, a comprehensive understanding of the influence of light on vegetable cultivation is needed. This study compared the performance of broad amber (595 nm) lamps to low-pressure sodium lamps (589 nm) and evaluated whether the addition of blue (450 and 473 nm) light improved plant growth. The low-pressure sodium lamp performed similarly to amber in terms of vegetative growth. Results showed that lettuce grown under low-pressure sodium lamps exhibited yellowing of leaves, which was not observed under amber light. The addition of blue light significantly (p < .05) reduced the fresh mass and dry mass of plants treated with low-pressure sodium lamps by 21.5% and 16.6%, respectively. For plants treated with amber light, the addition of blue light at light intensities below 170 μmol m−2 s−1 significantly (p < .05) increased both fresh mass and dry mass, although decreased by 30.4% and 19.5%, respectively, above 170 μmol m−2 s−1. Data presented herein show that the addition of blue LEDs significantly increased the chlorophyll concentration by 24.4% and 33.1% for low-pressure sodium lamps and amber light, respectively (p < .05).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".