Abstract
In one experiment, tomato plants were grown under natural light or extended photoperiods of 14, 16, 20 and 24 h. Compared to natural light, extended photoperiod treatments increased shoot fresh weight and yields of tomato plants by, respectively, 40–57% ( P <0.05) and 15–20% ( P >0.05). However, photoperiods longer than 14 h did not further improve growth and yields. In the second experiment, tomato plants were exposed to a 14 or 24 h photoperiod and clusters were either pruned to 1 fruit or not. Tomato plants exposed to continuous light (24 h photoperiod) started developing leaf chloroses after 7 weeks of treatments. We observed that, for the first 5 to 7 weeks of treatments, tomato plants grown under continuous light had better growth and higher yields than plants receiving the 14 h photoperiod. During the second half of the experiment, continuous lighting decreased the growth rate of tomato plants. At the end of the experiment, total growth and yields of tomato plants grown under continuous light were generally lower than plants exposed to 14 h photoperiod. Reducing fruit load increased vegetative growth and decreased yields, but had no influence on the response of tomato plants to the photoperiod treatments. Photoperiods did not influence leaf mineral composition. Therefore, plant mineral nutrition did not explain the leaf chloroses, reduced growth and yields observed under 24 h photoperiod. Continuous light increased leaf starch and sugar contents. Fruit pruning treatments did not alter plant response to photoperiod treatments regarding leaf starch and sugar contents and had no influence on the date of appearance and the severity of leaf chloroses noted under continuous light. Our data suggest that growth and yield reductions as well as leaf chloroses of tomato plants grown under continuous light are possibly explained by starch and sugar accumulation due to leaf limitations rather than a sink limitation.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Extended photoperiods increased shoot fresh weight by 40–57%.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- extended photoperiod treatmentse0
- Outcome
- shoot fresh weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 40–57%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“extended photoperiod treatments increased shoot fresh weight and yields of tomato plants by, respectively, 40–57% ( P <0.05) and 15–20% ( P >0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Extended photoperiods increased yields by 15–20%, without statistical significance.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- extended photoperiod treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15–20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“extended photoperiod treatments increased shoot fresh weight and yields of tomato plants by, respectively, 40–57% ( P <0.05) and 15–20% ( P >0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Photoperiods beyond 14 h did not further improve growth and yields.
- Treatment
- photoperiods longer than 14 he0
- Outcome
- growth and yieldse0
- Direction
- did not further improvee0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“photoperiods longer than 14 h did not further improve growth and yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous light caused leaf chlorosis after seven weeks.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- continuous light (24 h photoperiod)e0
- Outcome
- leaf chlorosese0
- Value
- 7 weekse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tomato plants exposed to continuous light (24 h photoperiod) started developing leaf chloroses after 7 weeks of treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous light improved early growth and yield relative to 14 h light.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- continuous lighte0
- Outcome
- growth and higher yieldse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- first 5 to 7 weekse0
- Comparator
- 14 h photoperiode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for the first 5 to 7 weeks of treatments, tomato plants grown under continuous light had better growth and higher yields than plants receiving the 14 h photoperiod”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous light reduced growth rate later in the experiment.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- continuous lightinge0
- Outcome
- growth ratee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the second half of the experiment, continuous lighting decreased the growth rate of tomato plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
At experiment end continuous light generally lowered total growth and yield relative to 14 h light.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- continuous lighte0
- Outcome
- total growth and yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- 14 h photoperiode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total growth and yields of tomato plants grown under continuous light were generally lower than plants exposed to 14 h photoperiod”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing fruit load increased vegetative growth.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fruit load increased vegetative growth and decreased yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing fruit load decreased yields.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fruit load increased vegetative growth and decreased yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit load reduction did not change photoperiod response.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Reducing fruit loade0
- Outcome
- response of tomato plants to the photoperiod treatmentse0
- Direction
- had no influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fruit load increased vegetative growth and decreased yields, but had no influence on the response of tomato plants to the photoperiod treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Photoperiod did not affect leaf mineral composition.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Photoperiods did not influence leaf mineral composition”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous light increased leaf starch content.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Continuous light increased leaf starch and sugar contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous light increased leaf sugar content.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Continuous light increased leaf starch and sugar contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit pruning did not alter the carbohydrate response to photoperiod.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Fruit pruning treatments did not alter plant response to photoperiod treatments regarding leaf starch and sugar contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit pruning did not affect onset or severity of continuous-light leaf chlorosis.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“had no influence on the date of appearance and the severity of leaf chloroses noted under continuous light”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors proposed leaf carbohydrate accumulation rather than sink limitation as the cause of continuous-light growth and yield reductions and chlorosis.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- growth and yield reductions as well as leaf chlorosese0
- Qualifier
- starch and sugar accumulation due to leaf limitations rather than a sink limitatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growth and yield reductions as well as leaf chloroses of tomato plants grown under continuous light are possibly explained by starch and sugar accumulation due to leaf limitations rather than a sink limitation”
The same questions in other papers
light · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →light · quality: general · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →light · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →light · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
222 papers more in this group
See all 226 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.