Abstract
This study was conducted to examine the effect of supplemental lighting on the growth and yield of hydroponically grown sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L. cv. sprit) under low levels of natural light in winter. The plants were treated with natural light only (control), 3-hour supplemental lighting before sunrise, after sunrise and after sunset with high pressure sodium (HPS, 400W). As the result of these three treatments, the supplemental lighting promoted photosynthesis in the low light intensity condition and particularly photosynthesis was more active right after sun rise in the morning, 1.5-3.0 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1 comparing to those of supplemental lighting after sunset, 0.5-1.5 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1 . Transpiration rate and stomatal conductance sharply increased with supplemental lighting after sunrise then they decreased again after turning the lights off. Stomatal size was observed 32.2 μm 2 after supplemental lighting, whereas the size of the natural light was almost closed at 7.7 μm 2 . The average plant height of sweet papper cv. spirit was 185 cm before sunrise, 188 cm after sunrise and 208 cm after sunset with supplemental lighting for 3hours while the control was 171 cm. With supplemental lighting a better number of fruit set per plant was measured 4.3 before and after sunrise, 3.7 after sunset but 2.6 in the control. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the sugar content (°Brix) degree between treatment of supplemental lighting, whereas slight differences between seasons were seen. The marketable fruit yield of sweet pepper (cv. spirit) was 116.0 kg·ha with supplemental lighting, whereas the control (natural light only) was 75.8 kg·ha. Despite of spending electricity and depreciation cost, the economic analysis showed net income with supplemental lighting after sunrise was 51% higher than control treatment in cv. spirit.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental lighting promoted photosynthesis under low light.
- Taxon
- sweet pepper
Capsicum annuumt0 - Treatment
- supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- photosynthesise0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the supplemental lighting promoted photosynthesis in the low light intensity condition”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
After-sunrise lighting gave photosynthesis of 1.5-3.0 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1 versus 0.5-1.5 after-sunset lighting.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- photosynthesise0
- Direction
- more activee0
- Value
- 1.5-3.0 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1e0
- Qualifier
- 0.5-1.5 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1e0
- Comparator
- supplemental lighting after sunsete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthesis was more active right after sun rise in the morning, 1.5-3.0 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1 comparing to those of supplemental lighting after sunset, 0.5-1.5 μmolCO2·m -2 ·s -1”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Transpiration rose sharply after sunrise lighting and fell when lights were switched off.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- supplemental lighting after sunrisee0
- Outcome
- Transpiration ratee0
- Direction
- sharply increasede0
- Qualifier
- decreased again after turning the lights offe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Transpiration rate and stomatal conductance sharply increased with supplemental lighting after sunrise then they decreased again after turning the lights off.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance rose sharply after sunrise lighting and fell when lights were switched off.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- supplemental lighting after sunrisee0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- sharply increasede0
- Qualifier
- decreased again after turning the lights offe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Transpiration rate and stomatal conductance sharply increased with supplemental lighting after sunrise then they decreased again after turning the lights off.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental lighting gave stomatal size of 32.2 μm 2 versus 7.7 μm 2 under natural light.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- Stomatal sizee0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 32.2 μm 2e0
- Qualifier
- 7.7 μm 2e0
- Comparator
- natural lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stomatal size was observed 32.2 μm 2 after supplemental lighting, whereas the size of the natural light was almost closed at 7.7 μm 2”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Before-sunrise lighting gave plant height of 185 cm versus 171 cm control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Material
- cv. spirite0
- Treatment
- before sunrisee0
- Outcome
- average plant heighte0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 185 cme0
- Qualifier
- 171 cme0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average plant height of sweet papper cv. spirit was 185 cm before sunrise, 188 cm after sunrise and 208 cm after sunset with supplemental lighting for 3hours while the control was 171 cm.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
After-sunrise lighting gave plant height of 188 cm versus 171 cm control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Material
- cv. spirite0
- Treatment
- after sunrisee0
- Outcome
- average plant heighte0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 188 cme0
- Qualifier
- 171 cme0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average plant height of sweet papper cv. spirit was 185 cm before sunrise, 188 cm after sunrise and 208 cm after sunset with supplemental lighting for 3hours while the control was 171 cm.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
After-sunset lighting gave plant height of 208 cm versus 171 cm control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Material
- cv. spirite0
- Treatment
- after sunsete0
- Outcome
- average plant heighte0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 208 cme0
- Qualifier
- 171 cme0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average plant height of sweet papper cv. spirit was 185 cm before sunrise, 188 cm after sunrise and 208 cm after sunset with supplemental lighting for 3hours while the control was 171 cm.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Before-sunrise lighting gave 4.3 fruits set per plant versus 2.6 control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- before sunrisee1
- Outcome
- number of fruit set per plante0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 4.3e0
- Qualifier
- 2.6e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With supplemental lighting a better number of fruit set per plant was measured 4.3 before and after sunrise, 3.7 after sunset but 2.6 in the control.”
t0“sweet pepper”
e1“The average plant height of sweet papper cv. spirit was 185 cm before sunrise, 188 cm after sunrise and 208 cm after sunset with supplemental lighting for 3hours while the control was 171 cm.”
Claim · model-written summary
After-sunrise lighting gave 4.3 fruits set per plant versus 2.6 control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- after sunrisee0
- Outcome
- number of fruit set per plante0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 4.3e0
- Qualifier
- 2.6e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With supplemental lighting a better number of fruit set per plant was measured 4.3 before and after sunrise, 3.7 after sunset but 2.6 in the control.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
After-sunset lighting gave 3.7 fruits set per plant versus 2.6 control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- after sunsete0
- Outcome
- number of fruit set per plante0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 3.7e0
- Qualifier
- 2.6e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With supplemental lighting a better number of fruit set per plant was measured 4.3 before and after sunrise, 3.7 after sunset but 2.6 in the control.”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar content did not differ significantly across supplemental lighting treatments.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- sugar content (°Brix)e0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- treatment of supplemental lightinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were no significant differences in the sugar content (°Brix) degree between treatment of supplemental lighting”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugar content differed slightly by season.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Outcome
- slight differences between seasonse0
- Setting
- seasonse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“slight differences between seasons were seen”
t0“sweet pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental lighting yielded 116.0 kg·ha marketable fruit versus 75.8 kg·ha under natural light.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuume0
- Material
- cv. spirite0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- marketable fruit yielde0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 116.0 kg·hae0
- Qualifier
- 75.8 kg·hae0
- Comparator
- natural light onlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The marketable fruit yield of sweet pepper (cv. spirit) was 116.0 kg·ha with supplemental lighting, whereas the control (natural light only) was 75.8 kg·ha.”
Claim · model-written summary
After-sunrise lighting yielded net income 51% above control.
- Taxon
- sweet pepperCapsicum annuumt0
- Material
- cv. spirite0
- Treatment
- supplemental lighting after sunrisee0
- Outcome
- net incomee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 51%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“net income with supplemental lighting after sunrise was 51% higher than control treatment in cv. spirit”
t0“sweet pepper”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →light · quality: sugar starch · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
light · quality: postharvest · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.