Abstract
ABSTRACT Light is one of the basic factors needed by plants for their development. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of supplementary lighting of tomato plants with HPS and LED lamps on the chosen physiological parameters and yielding of autumn-winter cultivation crops. Two tomato cultivars (‘Komeett’ F1 and ‘Starbuck’ F1 by De Ruiter Seeds) were used in this experiment. After the plants were planted, LED and HPS lamps of 100 μmol m-2 s-1 light intensity were installed. The results show that the introduction of a supplementary light source to tomato cultivation caused an increase in the intensity of photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll by 57.7%, 17.1%, 39.3% and 24.4% on average, respectively. Higher values of those parameters were obtained with HPS lamps than with LED lamps. The amount of marketable crops, number of fruits and mean fruit weight were higher in both combinations in which supplementary lighting was applied, and the values of these traits were higher when the cultivation was supplementary lighted with HPS lamps than with LED lamps. Due to the overhead light configuration and continued low light output, there was no increase of efficiency when using LED lamps compared to HPS lamps despite better focusing and spectral distribution.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Supplementary lighting increased tomato photosynthesis by 57.7% on average.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- supplementary light sourcee0
- Outcome
- intensity of photosynthesise0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 57.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the introduction of a supplementary light source to tomato cultivation caused an increase in the intensity of photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll by 57.7%, 17.1%, 39.3% and 24.4% on average, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplementary lighting increased tomato transpiration by 17.1% on average.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- supplementary light sourcee0
- Outcome
- transpiratione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 17.1%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the introduction of a supplementary light source to tomato cultivation caused an increase in the intensity of photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll by 57.7%, 17.1%, 39.3% and 24.4% on average, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplementary lighting increased tomato stomatal conductance by 39.3% on average.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- supplementary light sourcee0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 39.3%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the introduction of a supplementary light source to tomato cultivation caused an increase in the intensity of photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll by 57.7%, 17.1%, 39.3% and 24.4% on average, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplementary lighting increased tomato chlorophyll by 24.4% on average.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- supplementary light sourcee0
- Outcome
- chlorophylle0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 24.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the introduction of a supplementary light source to tomato cultivation caused an increase in the intensity of photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll by 57.7%, 17.1%, 39.3% and 24.4% on average, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS lamps produced higher photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll values than LED lamps.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- HPS lampse0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophylle1
- Direction
- Highere0
- Comparator
- LED lampse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher values of those parameters were obtained with HPS lamps than with LED lamps.”
e1“photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll”
t0“tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplementary lighting increased marketable crops, fruit number and mean fruit weight.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- supplementary lightinge0
- Outcome
- amount of marketable crops, number of fruits and mean fruit weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amount of marketable crops, number of fruits and mean fruit weight were higher in both combinations in which supplementary lighting was applied”
t0“tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS supplementary lighting produced higher marketable crops, fruit number and mean fruit weight than LED lighting.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- HPS lampse0
- Outcome
- amount of marketable crops, number of fruits and mean fruit weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- LED lampse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amount of marketable crops, number of fruits and mean fruit weight were higher in both combinations in which supplementary lighting was applied, and the values of these traits were higher when the cultivation was supplementary lighted with HPS lamps than with LED lamps.”
t0“tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
LED lamps did not increase lighting efficiency relative to HPS lamps under the stated configuration and output.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- LED lampse0
- Outcome
- efficiencye0
- Direction
- no increasee0
- Qualifier
- overhead light configuration and continued low light outpute0
- Comparator
- HPS lampse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Due to the overhead light configuration and continued low light output, there was no increase of efficiency when using LED lamps compared to HPS lamps despite better focusing and spectral distribution.”
t0“tomato plants”
The same questions in other papers
light · physiology: gas exchange · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →light · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →light · physiology: pigments · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 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.