Abstract
. Illumination of samples using blue (420 to 520 nm) light-emitting diodes (LEDs) increased the number of conidia trapped by a factor of approximately 2.7 over white light but germination of conidia under blue light was reduced by approximately 16.5% compared with conidia germination under white light. The number of conidia trapped under far-red (>685 nm) LEDs was approximately 4.7 times higher than in white light, and 13.3 times higher than under red (575 to 675 nm) LEDs, and germination was not induced compared with white light. When mildewed plants were exposed to cycles of 18 h of white light followed by 6 h of blue, red, far-red light, or darkness, light from the red LEDs reduced the number of conidia trapped by approximately 88% compared with darkness or far-red light. Interrupting the above dark period with 1 h of light from red LEDs also reduced the number of conidia trapped, while a 1-h period of light from far-red following the 1 h of light from red LEDs nullified the suppressive effect of red light. Our results indicate that brief exposure to red light during the dark interval may be as effective as continuous illumination in suppressing powdery mildew in greenhouse rose plant (Rosa × hybrida).
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Blue LED illumination increased the number of conidia trapped about 2.7-fold over white light.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- blue (420 to 520 nm) light-emitting diodes (LEDs)e1
- Interactor
- Podosphaera pannosa
Podosphaera pannosat1pathogen - Outcome
- number of conidia trappede1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- a factor of approximately 2.7e1
- Comparator
- white lighte1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
t1“Podosphaera pannosa”
e1“Illumination of samples using blue (420 to 520 nm) light-emitting diodes (LEDs) increased the number of conidia trapped by a factor of approximately 2.7 over white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light reduced conidia germination by about 16.5% compared with white light.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- blue lighte2
- Interactor
- Podosphaera pannosaPodosphaera pannosat1pathogen
- Outcome
- germination of conidiae2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- approximately 16.5%e2
- Comparator
- conidia germination under white lighte2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
t1“Podosphaera pannosa”
e2“germination of conidia under blue light was reduced by approximately 16.5% compared with conidia germination under white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Far-red LED light increased the number of conidia trapped about 4.7-fold over white light.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- far-red (>685 nm) LEDse3
- Interactor
- Podosphaera pannosaPodosphaera pannosat1pathogen
- Outcome
- number of conidia trappede3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- approximately 4.7 timese3
- Comparator
- white lighte3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
t1“Podosphaera pannosa”
e3“The number of conidia trapped under far-red (>685 nm) LEDs was approximately 4.7 times higher than in white light, and 13.3 times higher than under red (575 to 675 nm) LEDs, and germination was not induced compared with white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Far-red LED light increased the number of conidia trapped about 13.3-fold over red LED light.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- far-red (>685 nm) LEDse3
- Interactor
- Podosphaera pannosaPodosphaera pannosat1pathogen
- Outcome
- number of conidia trappede3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 13.3 timese3
- Comparator
- red (575 to 675 nm) LEDse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
t1“Podosphaera pannosa”
e3“The number of conidia trapped under far-red (>685 nm) LEDs was approximately 4.7 times higher than in white light, and 13.3 times higher than under red (575 to 675 nm) LEDs, and germination was not induced compared with white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Far-red light did not induce conidia germination compared with white light.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e3“The number of conidia trapped under far-red (>685 nm) LEDs was approximately 4.7 times higher than in white light, and 13.3 times higher than under red (575 to 675 nm) LEDs, and germination was not induced compared with white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Red LED light during the dark period reduced conidia trapped by about 88% compared with darkness or far-red light.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e4“light from the red LEDs reduced the number of conidia trapped by approximately 88% compared with darkness or far-red light”
Claim · model-written summary
A 1 h red LED interruption of the dark period also reduced conidia trapped.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e5“Interrupting the above dark period with 1 h of light from red LEDs also reduced the number of conidia trapped”
Claim · model-written summary
A 1 h far-red period after red light nullified the suppressive effect of red light.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e6“a 1-h period of light from far-red following the 1 h of light from red LEDs nullified the suppressive effect of red light”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · RosaPositive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →light · Podosphaera pannosa · RosaResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
light · disease · RosaResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.