Flowering and Morphology Responses of Greenhouse Ornamentals to End-of-Day Blue-Dominant Lighting with Different Phytochrome Photostationary States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate whether blue-dominant spectra from end-of-day (EOD) lighting can regulate crop morphological and flowering responses, chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum × morifolium; obligate short day), geranium (Pelargonium × hortorum; day neutral), calibrachoa (Calibrachoa × hybrida; facultative long day), and gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii; facultative short day) plants were grown under different light-emitting diode (LED) spectrum treatments from January to April 2020, in Guelph, Canada. The spectrum treatments were (1) no EOD lighting, (2) narrowband blue from LEDs (B), (3) a combination of narrowband blue, red, and far-red LEDs with a photon flux ratio of 47:3:1 (blue:red:far-red; BRFR). The B and BRFR treatments ran daily from 0.5 h to 4.5 h after dusk. Compared to the control without EOD lighting, chrysanthemum flower initiation was completely inhibited under BRFR. Flowering time was slightly delayed, but flower bud number increased under B. Side branch number, leaf area, and main stem length and diameter increased under B and BRFR. In the geranium B and BRFR did not affect flowering, but increased side branch number and length and diameter of the main stem. Both spectrum treatments promoted earlier flowering in the calibrachoa, but BRFR produced more flower buds. The calibrachoa aerial dry biomass and main stem length increased under B and BRFR. The gerbera leaf chlorophyll index and leaf thickness increased under BRFR. Both spectrum treatments increased the gerbera flower bud size, despite having little effect on flowering time. In all species, at least one of the LED treatments increased canopy size. Therefore, low levels of B or BRFR can be potentially used for EOD lighting to regulate the flowering and morphology of potted ornamentals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".