Abstract
The stimulating effect of diffuse light on radiation use efficiency (RUE) of crops is often explained by the more homogeneous spatial light distribution, while rarely considering differences in temporal light distribution at leaf level. This study investigated whether diffuse light effects on crop RUE can be explained by dynamic responses of leaf photosynthesis to temporal changes of photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). Two Anthurium andreanum cultivars ('Pink Champion' and 'Royal Champion') were grown in two glasshouses covered by clear (control) and diffuse glass, with similar light transmission. On clear days, diffusing the light resulted in less temporal fluctuations of PPFD. Stomatal conductance (g s) varied strongly in response to transient PPFD in 'Royal Champion,' whereas it remained relatively constant in 'Pink Champion.' Instantaneous net leaf photosynthesis (P n) in both cultivars approached steady state P n in diffuse light treatment. In control treatment this only occurred in 'Pink Champion.' These cultivar differences were reflected by a higher RUE (8%) in 'Royal Champion' in diffuse light treatment compared with control, whereas no effect on RUE was observed in 'Pink Champion.' We conclude that the stimulating effect of diffuse light on RUE depends on the stomatal response to temporal PPFD fluctuations, which response is cultivar dependent.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Diffuse glass reduced temporal PPFD fluctuations on clear days.
AnthuriumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On clear days, diffusing the light resulted in less temporal fluctuations of PPFD.”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Royal Champion stomatal conductance varied strongly with transient PPFD.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stomatal conductance (g s) varied strongly in response to transient PPFD in 'Royal Champion,'”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Pink Champion stomatal conductance remained relatively constant with transient PPFD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whereas it remained relatively constant in 'Pink Champion.'”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Instantaneous net leaf photosynthesis approached steady state in both cultivars under diffuse light.
- Treatment
- diffuse light treatmente0
- Outcome
- Instantaneous net leaf photosynthesis (P n)e0
- Direction
- approached steady statee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Instantaneous net leaf photosynthesis (P n) in both cultivars approached steady state P n in diffuse light treatment.”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Under control light, instantaneous net photosynthesis approached steady state only in Pink Champion.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In control treatment this only occurred in 'Pink Champion.'”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Diffuse light raised radiation use efficiency in Royal Champion by 8% versus control.
- Material
- Royal Champione0
- Treatment
- diffuse light treatmente0
- Outcome
- RUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 8%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a higher RUE (8%) in 'Royal Champion' in diffuse light treatment compared with control”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Diffuse light had no observed RUE effect in Pink Champion.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effect on RUE was observed in 'Pink Champion.'”
t0“Effects of Diffuse Light on Radiation Use Efficiency of Two Anthurium Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that the RUE response to diffuse light depends on cultivar-specific stomatal responses to PPFD fluctuations.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the stimulating effect of diffuse light on RUE depends on the stomatal response to temporal PPFD fluctuations, which response is cultivar dependent”
t0“Anthurium Cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · AnthuriumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
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.