Abstract
Managing environmental conditions to limit water loss of cuttings during the initial propagation phase (“acclimation”) is critical. Using chrysanthemum ( Chrysanthemum indicum ) and begonia ( Begonia × hiemalis ) cuttings, our objectives were to characterize 1) short-term effects of blue light [15 % to 60 % at a photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 70 µmol·m – 2 ·s –1 ] on water use (Experiment 1); and 2) short- and long-term effects on water use and growth of cuttings acclimated under two blue-light treatments [21 % (21B) or 45 % (45B)] at two carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations (ambient or high at ∼500 or 1200 μmol·mol –1 , respectively) (Experiment 2). Results from Experiment 1 generally showed that increasing blue light increased water loss and water uptake by unrooted cuttings. However, no differences were measured in stomatal conductance ( g s ) or transpiration ( E ), suggesting that stomata may be unresponsive to blue light during acclimation. In contrast, increasing blue light linearly increased g s and E of rooted begonia cuttings, but no differences were measured in water use. There were few growth differences in response to blue light at the two CO 2 concentrations evaluated in Experiment 2, suggesting that cuttings may be more responsive to some environmental stimuli after initial root development. Various responses were species-specific. For example, begonia cuttings were shorter and produced smaller leaves under 45B than 21B when acclimated under high CO 2 . In contrast, chrysanthemum cuttings were slightly taller under 45B and high CO 2 but were otherwise generally unresponsive to blue light. Evapotranspiration only increased in response to blue light when begonia cuttings were acclimated under high CO 2 . Overall, our findings show that blue-light percentage and CO 2 concentration may not have large effects on rooting and growth of ornamental cuttings during acclimation, but some physiological and water-use differences can be expected, particularly under different blue-light percentages.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Increasing blue light increased water loss and uptake in unrooted cuttings.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemum and begonia
Begonia.jpeg?width=60)
Chrysanthemumt0 - Organ / stage
- unrooted cuttingse0
- Treatment
- increasing blue lighte0
- Outcome
- water loss and water uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpeg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“increasing blue light increased water loss and water uptake by unrooted cuttings”
t0“chrysanthemum and begonia”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light produced no measured differences in stomatal conductance or transpiration during acclimation.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemum and begoniaBegoniaChrysanthemumt0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance ( g s ) or transpiration ( E )e0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no differences were measured in stomatal conductance ( g s ) or transpiration ( E )”
t0“chrysanthemum and begonia”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing blue light linearly raised stomatal conductance and transpiration in rooted begonia cuttings.
- Organ / stage
- rooted begonia cuttingse0
- Treatment
- increasing blue lighte0
- Outcome
- g s and Ee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing blue light linearly increased g s and E of rooted begonia cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use did not differ for rooted begonia cuttings as blue light increased.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rooted begonia cuttings, but no differences were measured in water use”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth differed little across blue light and carbon dioxide treatments.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemum and begoniaBegoniaChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- blue lighte0
- Outcome
- growth differencese0
- Direction
- fewe0
- Qualifier
- two CO 2 concentrationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were few growth differences in response to blue light at the two CO 2 concentrations evaluated in Experiment 2”
t0“chrysanthemum and begonia”
Claim · model-written summary
Under high carbon dioxide, begonia cuttings were shorter at 45B than 21B.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“begonia cuttings were shorter and produced smaller leaves under 45B than 21B when acclimated under high CO 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Under high carbon dioxide, begonia cuttings had smaller leaves at 45B than 21B.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“begonia cuttings were shorter and produced smaller leaves under 45B than 21B when acclimated under high CO 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Chrysanthemum cuttings were slightly taller under 45B and high carbon dioxide.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
- Treatment
- 45B and high CO 2e0
- Outcome
- cuttingse0
- Direction
- tallere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chrysanthemum cuttings were slightly taller under 45B and high CO 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Evapotranspiration increased with blue light only in begonia under high carbon dioxide.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evapotranspiration only increased in response to blue light when begonia cuttings were acclimated under high CO 2”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · BegoniaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 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.