Abstract
Abstract The article presents the influence of pulsed and continuous irradiation (400…780 nm) on in vitro growth of the climbing rose variety “Camelot” at the illumination of 80±5 mmol/(m 2 s), temperature - 24±1 0 C, and the relative air humidity - 73±2%. It was found that the experimental led light (LED) pulsed phytoirradiator contributed to a significant increase in the leaf surface area during cultivation of climbing rose microstems in Gamborg’s nutrient medium, the average growth was 2.94 mm 2 compared to 2.80 mm 2 in the control. Pulse irradiation increases the reproducibility of climbing roses by 1.7 times, and also increases the rooting rate up to 96% compared to 82% in the control. Experimental LED phytoirradiator of continuous irradiation promoted an increase in the leaf surface area growth at the level of the control luminescent phytoirradiator, but also provided a significant increase in the reproduction factor and rooting rate of rose microstems. In the pulsed mode, phytoinstallations consume only 50% of the electricity compared to the continuous irradiation mode.
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
Pulsed LED irradiation increased rose leaf surface area growth to 2.94 mm 2 versus 2.80 mm 2 under control lighting.
Verbatim
e0“experimental led light (LED) pulsed phytoirradiator contributed to a significant increase in the leaf surface area during cultivation of climbing rose microstems in Gamborg’s nutrient medium, the average growth was 2.94 mm 2 compared to 2.80 mm 2 in the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pulse irradiation increased climbing rose reproducibility by 1.7 times.
- Taxon
- climbing rosese0
- Treatment
- Pulse irradiatione0
- Outcome
- reproducibilitye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 1.7 timese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Pulse irradiation increases the reproducibility of climbing roses by 1.7 times”
Claim · model-written summary
Pulse irradiation increased rooting rate to 96% compared with 82% in the control.
Verbatim
e0“Pulse irradiation increases the reproducibility of climbing roses by 1.7 times, and also increases the rooting rate up to 96% compared to 82% in the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous LED irradiation produced rose leaf area growth at the control luminescent phytoirradiator level.
Verbatim
e0“Experimental LED phytoirradiator of continuous irradiation promoted an increase in the leaf surface area growth at the level of the control luminescent phytoirradiator, but also provided a significant increase in the reproduction factor and rooting rate of rose microstems.”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous LED irradiation significantly increased rose reproduction factor and rooting rate.
Verbatim
e0“Experimental LED phytoirradiator of continuous irradiation promoted an increase in the leaf surface area growth at the level of the control luminescent phytoirradiator, but also provided a significant increase in the reproduction factor and rooting rate of rose microstems.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pulsed light installations used 50% of the electricity of continuous mode.
Verbatim
e0“In the pulsed mode, phytoinstallations consume only 50% of the electricity compared to the continuous irradiation mode.”
t0“climbing rose”
The same questions in other papers
radiation · growth · RosaPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →light · pest · RosaPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · growth · RosaPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 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.