Abstract
Alterations in light quality affect plant morphogenesis and photosynthetic responses but the effects vary significantly between species. Roses exhibit an irradiance-dependent flowering control but knowledge on light quality responses is scarce. In this study we analyzed, the responses in morphology, photosynthesis and flowering of Rosa × hybrida to different blue (B) light proportions provided by light-emitting diodes (LED, high B 20%) and high pressure sodium (HPS, low B 5%) lamps. There was a strong morphological and growth effect of the light sources but no significant difference in total dry matter production and flowering. HPS-grown plants had significantly higher leaf area and plant height, yet a higher dry weight proportion was allocated to leaves than stems under LED. LED plants showed 20% higher photosynthetic capacity (Amax ) and higher levels of soluble carbohydrates. The increase in Amax correlated with an increase in leaf mass per unit leaf area, higher stomata conductance and CO2 exchange, total chlorophyll (Chl) content per area and Chl a/b ratio. LED-grown leaves also displayed a more sun-type leaf anatomy with more and longer palisade cells and a higher stomata frequency. Although floral initiation occurred at a higher leaf number in LED, the time to open flowers was the same under both light conditions. Thereby the study shows that a higher portion of B light is efficient in increasing photosynthesis performance per unit leaf area, enhancing growth and morphological changes in roses but does not affect the total Dry Matter (DM) production or time to open flower.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
LED light gave Rosa × hybrida plants 20% higher photosynthetic capacity (Amax) than HPS light.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybrida
Rosa hybrid cultivart0 - Treatment
- LEDe1
- Outcome
- photosynthetic capacity (Amax)e1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 20%e1
- Comparator
- HPSe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e1“LED plants showed 20% higher photosynthetic capacity (Amax) and higher levels of soluble carbohydrates”
e2“high pressure sodium (HPS, low B 5%) lamps”
Claim · model-written summary
LED light gave Rosa × hybrida plants higher levels of soluble carbohydrates than HPS light.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Treatment
- LEDe1
- Outcome
- soluble carbohydratese1
- Direction
- higher levelse1
- Comparator
- HPSe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e1“LED plants showed 20% higher photosynthetic capacity (Amax) and higher levels of soluble carbohydrates”
e2“high pressure sodium (HPS, low B 5%) lamps”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in Amax in Rosa × hybrida correlated with increases in leaf mass per unit leaf area, stomatal conductance and CO2 exchange.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Organ / stage
- leafe3
- Outcome
- Amaxe3
- Direction
- increasee3
- Qualifier
- higher stomata conductance and CO2 exchangee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e3“The increase in Amax correlated with an increase in leaf mass per unit leaf area, higher stomata conductance and CO2 exchange, total chlorophyll (Chl) content per area and Chl a/b ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-grown Rosa × hybrida leaves had a more sun-type anatomy with more and longer palisade cells and a higher stomata frequency.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Organ / stage
- palisade cellse4
- Treatment
- LEDe4
- Outcome
- sun-type leaf anatomye4
- Qualifier
- more and longer palisade cells and a higher stomata frequencye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e4“LED-grown leaves also displayed a more sun-type leaf anatomy with more and longer palisade cells and a higher stomata frequency”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS-grown Rosa × hybrida plants had significantly higher leaf area and plant height than LED-grown plants.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Treatment
- HPSe5
- Outcome
- leaf area and plant heighte5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- LEDe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e5“HPS-grown plants had significantly higher leaf area and plant height, yet a higher dry weight proportion was allocated to leaves than stems under LED”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED, a higher dry weight proportion of Rosa × hybrida was allocated to leaves than to stems.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Treatment
- LEDe5
- Outcome
- dry weight proportione5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- stemse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e5“HPS-grown plants had significantly higher leaf area and plant height, yet a higher dry weight proportion was allocated to leaves than stems under LED”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LED, floral initiation in Rosa × hybrida occurred at a higher leaf number.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Treatment
- LEDe7
- Outcome
- floral initiatione7
- Direction
- highere7
- Qualifier
- at a higher leaf numbere7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e7“Although floral initiation occurred at a higher leaf number in LED”
Claim · model-written summary
The light sources gave no significant difference in total dry matter production of Rosa × hybrida between LED and HPS.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Treatment
- light sourcese6
- Outcome
- total dry matter production and floweringe6
- Direction
- no significant differencee6
- Comparator
- HPSe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e6“There was a strong morphological and growth effect of the light sources but no significant difference in total dry matter production and flowering”
e2“high pressure sodium (HPS, low B 5%) lamps”
Claim · model-written summary
Time to open flowers of Rosa × hybrida was the same under both light conditions.
- Taxon
- Rosa × hybridaRosa hybrid cultivart0
- Treatment
- light conditionse0
- Outcome
- time to open flowerse0
- Direction
- the samee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Rosa × hybrida”
e0“the time to open flowers was the same under both light conditions”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Rosa hybrid cultivarPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Rosa hybrid cultivarPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.