MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410721447 · doi:10.3390/foods14111872

Effects of Spectral Ranges on Growth and Yield in Vertical Hydroponic–Aeroponic Hybrid Grow Systems for Radishes and Turnips

2025· article· en· W4410721447 on OpenAlexafffund
Adia Shadd, Nima Asgari, Joshua M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsYield (engineering)Environmental scienceHorticultureAgronomyBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As climate change destabilizes food crop production, there is a growing interest in controlled environment agriculture (CEA). Although light-emitting diodes (LED) have made CEA economically viable for some high-value crops when coupled to agrivoltaics (solar photovoltaics + agriculture), it has generally not been used for root vegetables. This is the first study to demonstrate that radishes and turnips could be grown in a reasonable period of eight weeks in an agrivoltaic agrotunnel using both lighting and grow walls optimized for lettuce growth. As reduction in LED energy use is important to minimize capital costs for solar energy, this study investigated three lighting treatments (red, white, and full-spectrum as control). The normalized yields (adjusted for total energy provided by each treatment) showed that both cultivars preferred red light, and harvested green leaves provided higher masses than the roots, although turnips appeared to be far more adaptable to vertical growth than radishes (>450% for roots and >50% for leaves per pot compared to radishes for the control treatment). The results show promise for providing true net-zero carbon emission root vegetables year-round with similar agrivoltaics-powered CEAs. Future work is needed with light intensity trials to optimize light recipes.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207