Abstract
Abstract The use of controlled‐environment facilities in agronomic research has raised questions about the comparability of plant growth in controlled and field environments. The objective of this study was to compare leaf area, leaf and stem dry weights, and stem height at several intervals during the exponential growth phase of tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’) in field and phytotron environments. Since photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) in growth rooms usually is less than occurs in the field, the study included a range of accumulated daily PAR of 11.4, 17.9, and 25.0 E m −2 day −1 in the growth rooms and 24.9 and 42.2 E m −2 day −1 in the field. The lower PAR in the field was obtained by shading with open mesh fabric. For each PAR level in the growth rooms, plants were grown at day/night temperatures of 22/18 and 26/22 C. In the growth rooms, there was not an interaction between PAR and temperature on growth characteristics. During the exponential growth phase, there was little difference between PAR levels of 17.9 and 25.0 E m −2 day −1 in growth characteristics measured at the five individual sample dates or relative growth rate (RGR) and relative leaf area growth rate (RLGR) calculated over all sampling dates. There was a consistent reduction in growth when PAR was reduced to 11.4 E m −2 day −1 , although the differences were seldom significant. In the comparisons of leaf weight and area growth between field and phytotron‐grown plants, growth of leaves was generally enhanced, though usually not to significant levels, for full sunlight. However, growth at the maximum growth room PAR of 25.0 E m −2 day −1 tended to be greater than at 24.9 E m −2 day −1 for the shaded field plots. Leaf growth at the lowest growth room PAR of 11.4 E m −2 day −1 was nearly identical to that in the shaded plots. This apparent inefficiency of PAR utilization in field plots is postulated, on the basis of other experimentation, to be due to the seasonal pattern of temperature variations in the field rather than to a difference in the quality of light between field and phytotron. Stem height increased in the growth rooms at nearly twice the rate as in the field, regardless of PAR level. This difference in growth also is postulated to be the result of the temperature variations in the field.
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
PAR and temperature did not interact on growth characteristics in growth rooms.
- Taxon
- tobacco
Nicotiana tabacumt0 - Outcome
- interaction between PAR and temperature on growth characteristicse0
- Setting
- growth roomse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the growth rooms, there was not an interaction between PAR and temperature on growth characteristics.”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth characteristics and growth rates differed little between 17.9 and 25.0 E m −2 day −1 PAR.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- 17.9e0
- Outcome
- growth characteristics measured at the five individual sample dates or relative growth rate (RGR) and relative leaf area growth rate (RLGR)e0
- Direction
- little differencee0
- Comparator
- 25.0 E m −2 day −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was little difference between PAR levels of 17.9 and 25.0 E m −2 day −1 in growth characteristics measured at the five individual sample dates or relative growth rate (RGR) and relative leaf area growth rate (RLGR) calculated over all sampling dates”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing PAR to 11.4 E m −2 day −1 consistently reduced growth, rarely significantly.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- PAR was reduced to 11.4 E m −2 day −1e0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- seldom significante0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was a consistent reduction in growth when PAR was reduced to 11.4 E m −2 day −1 , although the differences were seldom significant.”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf weight and area growth were generally enhanced under full field sunlight, usually without significance.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- full sunlighte0
- Outcome
- growth of leavese0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Qualifier
- usually not to significant levelse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growth of leaves was generally enhanced, though usually not to significant levels, for full sunlight”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf growth at growth room PAR of 25.0 tended to exceed shaded field plots at 24.9.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- maximum growth room PAR of 25.0 E m −2 day −1e0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- 24.9 E m −2 day −1 for the shaded field plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growth at the maximum growth room PAR of 25.0 E m −2 day −1 tended to be greater than at 24.9 E m −2 day −1 for the shaded field plots”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf growth at lowest growth room PAR was nearly identical to shaded field plots.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- lowest growth room PAR of 11.4 E m −2 day −1e0
- Outcome
- Leaf growthe0
- Direction
- nearly identicale0
- Comparator
- shaded plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf growth at the lowest growth room PAR of 11.4 E m −2 day −1 was nearly identical to that in the shaded plots.”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Field seasonal temperature variation was postulated to explain inefficient PAR use in field plots.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- inefficiency of PAR utilization in field plotse0
- Qualifier
- seasonal pattern of temperature variations in the fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This apparent inefficiency of PAR utilization in field plots is postulated, on the basis of other experimentation, to be due to the seasonal pattern of temperature variations in the field rather than to a difference in the quality of light between field and phytotron.”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem height increased nearly twice as fast in growth rooms as in the field regardless of PAR.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- growth roomse0
- Outcome
- Stem heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- nearly twice the ratee0
- Qualifier
- regardless of PAR levele0
- Comparator
- fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stem height increased in the growth rooms at nearly twice the rate as in the field, regardless of PAR level.”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
Claim · model-written summary
The faster growth room stem growth was attributed hypothetically to field temperature variation.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- difference in growthe0
- Qualifier
- temperature variations in the fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This difference in growth also is postulated to be the result of the temperature variations in the field.”
t0“tobacco plants ( Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘NC 2326’)”
The same questions in other papers
radiation · growth · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →light · growth · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.