Abstract
The amount of energy used in agricultural production, processing and distribution is constantly increasing. During the winter months in the greenhouse production industry, the supplemental lighting required to keep up production levels results in high expenditure. Current technology uses broadband high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps, which is not the most efficient light source for crop production. Recent breakthroughs in the development of light source technologies have led to new opportunities for the use of sustainable and highly efficient light sources in the form of LEDs (light-emitting diodes) for greenhouse lighting. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of using photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) light for cucumber yielding, production processes and its influence on the variable costs in the cultivation of cucumbers using three different types of lighting. The research was carried out using three individual greenhouse growing area compartments, whereby the plants contained within were lit using three combinations: 1. HPS standard illumination from top HPS sodium lamps—control, 2. HPS-LED—HPS toplighting and LED interlighting, and 3. LED-LED—100% LED lighting, both toplighting and interlighting with LED. The research was conducted in two independent winter crop cycles. The results of the research conducted indicate that the efficiency of light use was the highest in the LED-LED combination and the lowest in HPS, and the use of supplemental lamp lighting in the LED-LED combination (interlighting and toplighting) gives the most favorable surplus of all the variable costs over the value of production to be obtained. Despite the highest absolute level of variable costs in this type of supplemental lighting, the production value was higher by as much as 32.55% in relation to the HPS combination, which also translated into a gross margin that was higher by about ¾. However, it is worth pointing out that, in the HPS-LED combination, the share of lighting and heating costs in the total value of production was the lowest. It is also a combination currently recommended in the literature as being the most beneficial in greenhouse production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Light use efficiency was highest under LED-LED and lowest under HPS.
- Taxon
- Cucumber
Cucumis sativust0 - Treatment
- LED-LEDe0
- Outcome
- efficiency of light usee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- HPSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the efficiency of light use was the highest in the LED-LED combination and the lowest in HPS”
t0“Cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-LED gave the most favorable surplus of variable costs over production value.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- LED-LED combinatione0
- Outcome
- surplus of all the variable costs over the value of productione0
- Direction
- most favorablee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of supplemental lamp lighting in the LED-LED combination (interlighting and toplighting) gives the most favorable surplus of all the variable costs over the value of production to be obtained”
t0“Cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-LED had the highest absolute variable costs.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- this type of supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- absolute level of variable costse0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest absolute level of variable costs in this type of supplemental lighting”
t0“Cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-LED production value was 32.55% higher than HPS.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- LED-LED combinatione1
- Outcome
- production valuee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 32.55%e0
- Comparator
- HPS combinatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the production value was higher by as much as 32.55% in relation to the HPS combination”
t0“Cucumber”
e1“the efficiency of light use was the highest in the LED-LED combination”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-LED gross margin was higher by about three quarters than HPS.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- LED-LED combinatione2
- Outcome
- gross margine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- about ¾e0
- Comparator
- HPS combinatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which also translated into a gross margin that was higher by about ¾”
e1“in relation to the HPS combination”
t0“Cucumber”
e2“the efficiency of light use was the highest in the LED-LED combination”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS-LED had the lowest lighting and heating cost share of production value.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- HPS-LED combinatione0
- Outcome
- share of lighting and heating costs in the total value of productione0
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the HPS-LED combination, the share of lighting and heating costs in the total value of production was the lowest”
t0“Cucumber”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 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.