Claim · model-written summary
Lighting did not change tissue temperature, chlorophyll fluorescence or stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- SL treatmente0
- Outcome
- tissue temperature, chlorophyll fluorescence, and stomatal conductance ( g S )e0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tissue temperature, chlorophyll fluorescence, and stomatal conductance ( g S ) were unaffected by SL treatment in both experiments”
t0“Physiological and Productivity Responses of High-wire Tomato as Affected by Supplemental Light Source and Distribution within the Canopy”
Title
Celina Gómez; Cary A. Mitchell Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 2016. doi:10.21273/jashs.141.2.196
Other claims from this paper (5)
- Intervention effect Lighting treatments did not significantly change harvest parameters or listed physiological measurements.
- Observation CO2 assimilation under saturating light indicated reduced top-to-bottom photosynthetic decline with intracanopy lighting.
- Intervention effect Supplemental lighting generally increased tomato fruit yield relative to control.
- Intervention effect Intracanopy and top supplemental light increased yield to the same extent.
- Mechanism The authors inferred extra intracanopy photoassimilate likely maintained vegetative parts.