Abstract
To increase the available photosynthetic photon flux ( PPF ) for plant growth, greenhouse growers sometimes use electric lighting to supplement solar light. The conventional lighting technology used to increase PPF in the greenhouse is high-pressure sodium lamps (HPS). A potential alternative to HPS is high-intensity light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The objective of this study is to compare supplemental LED lighting with supplemental HPS lighting in terms of plant growth and morphology as well as discuss the energy use efficiencies of the fixtures. There were three light treatments: 1) blue LED (peak wavelength 443 nm); 2) red LED (peak wavelength 633 nm); and 3) HPS, to provide 3.7 ± 0.2 mol·m −2 ·d −1 (background solar radiation of 6.3 ± 0.9 mol·m −2 ·d −1 ). Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ) plants at the transplanting stage (26 to 37 days) under HPS had 28% greater dry mass than did plants under the LED treatments. This can be attributed to the higher leaf temperature under the HPS treatment. No differences were observed in growth parameters (dry mass, fresh weight, or number of leaves) between the blue and red LED treatments. Plants under the blue LED treatment had greater net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance ( g S ) than those under the red LED and HPS treatments. Plants under the blue LED and HPS treatments had 46% and 61% greater hypocotyl length than those under the red LED, respectively. The fixture PPF efficiencies used in the experiment were 1.9, 1.7, and 1.64 μmol·J −1 for the blue LED, red LED, and HPS treatments, respectively; however, the fixture growing efficiency (g·kWh −1 ) of HPS was 6% and 17% greater than the blue LED and red LED treatment, respectively. In summary, supplemental red LED produced desirable plant compactness and HPS had greater fixture growing efficiency than LEDs.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
HPS-grown cucumber transplants had 28% more dry mass than LED-grown transplants.
- Taxon
- Cucumber
Cucumis sativuse0 - Organ / stage
- transplanting stagee0
- Treatment
- HPSe0
- Outcome
- dry masse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Comparator
- LED treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus ) plants at the transplanting stage (26 to 37 days) under HPS had 28% greater dry mass than did plants under the LED treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher leaf temperature under HPS was attributed as the reason for greater cucumber dry mass.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- HPS treatmente0
- Outcome
- higher leaf temperaturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“This can be attributed to the higher leaf temperature under the HPS treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue and red LED treatments did not differ in cucumber dry mass, fresh weight, or number of leaves.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- bluee0
- Outcome
- dry mass, fresh weight, or number of leavese0
- Direction
- No differencese0
- Comparator
- red LED treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“No differences were observed in growth parameters (dry mass, fresh weight, or number of leaves) between the blue and red LED treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue LED increased net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance relative to red LED and HPS.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- blue LED treatmente0
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- red LED and HPS treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“Plants under the blue LED treatment had greater net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance ( g S ) than those under the red LED and HPS treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue LED produced 46% longer hypocotyls than red LED.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- blue LEDe0
- Outcome
- hypocotyl lengthe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 46%e0
- Comparator
- red LEDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“Plants under the blue LED and HPS treatments had 46% and 61% greater hypocotyl length than those under the red LED, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS produced 61% longer hypocotyls than red LED.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- HPS treatmentse0
- Outcome
- hypocotyl lengthe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 61%e0
- Comparator
- red LEDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“Plants under the blue LED and HPS treatments had 46% and 61% greater hypocotyl length than those under the red LED, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue LED fixture PPF efficiency was 1.9 μmol·J −1.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- blue LEDe0
- Outcome
- fixture PPF efficienciese0
- Value
- 1.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“The fixture PPF efficiencies used in the experiment were 1.9, 1.7, and 1.64 μmol·J −1 for the blue LED, red LED, and HPS treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Red LED fixture PPF efficiency was 1.7 μmol·J −1.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- red LEDe0
- Outcome
- fixture PPF efficienciese0
- Value
- 1.7e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“The fixture PPF efficiencies used in the experiment were 1.9, 1.7, and 1.64 μmol·J −1 for the blue LED, red LED, and HPS treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS fixture PPF efficiency was 1.64 μmol·J −1.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- HPS treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fixture PPF efficienciese0
- Value
- 1.64 μmol·J −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“The fixture PPF efficiencies used in the experiment were 1.9, 1.7, and 1.64 μmol·J −1 for the blue LED, red LED, and HPS treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS fixture growing efficiency exceeded blue LED by 6%.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- HPSe0
- Outcome
- fixture growing efficiencye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6%e0
- Comparator
- blue LEDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“the fixture growing efficiency (g·kWh −1 ) of HPS was 6% and 17% greater than the blue LED and red LED treatment, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS fixture growing efficiency exceeded red LED by 17%.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- HPSe0
- Outcome
- fixture growing efficiencye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Comparator
- red LED treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“the fixture growing efficiency (g·kWh −1 ) of HPS was 6% and 17% greater than the blue LED and red LED treatment, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental red LED produced desirable cucumber compactness.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- supplemental red LEDe0
- Outcome
- desirable plant compactnesse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber Transplant Production”
e0“supplemental red LED produced desirable plant compactness”
The same questions in other papers
sodium atom · growth · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →light · growth · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Results differ
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 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.