Abstract
Two sunflower hybrids, Hysun 31 and Suncross 150, were grown in the field with adequate irrigation and given three light treatments throughout their life cycle. The treatments were 100, 50 and 20% sun (high, medium and low light); during the vegetative period the high light treatment averaged more than 20 MJ m-2 day-1 total short-wave radiation. The two cultivars, although differing in many of the leaf and plant growth parameters measured, followed the same trends with respect to light. A reduction from 100 to 50% light delayed the appearance of leaves slightly but had no effect on patterns of leaf-area expansion such as the rate and duration of expansion of individual leaves and the distribution of leaf area among nodes. A further reduction in light, however, significantly reduced the size of all leaves through effects on the rates at which leaves expanded. There was no effect of light level on the period for which leaves expanded. Whilst leaf expansion remained unaffected by a reduction from high to medium light, specific leaf weight was significantly reduced to 76% of control levels. The lowest light regime further reduced specific leaf weight to only 59% of control levels. Total plant weights declined to 89% (not significant) at the medium light level and significantly to 47% at the low level and as harvest index was marginally, though not significantly, decreased by a reduction in light, these values translated into significant reductions in seed production (86 and 44% of controls).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Both cultivars followed the same light-response trends despite differing growth parameters.
- Taxon
- sunflower
Helianthus annuuse1 - Outcome
- same trends with respect to lighte0
- Qualifier
- differing in many of the leaf and plant growth parameters measurede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The two cultivars, although differing in many of the leaf and plant growth parameters measured, followed the same trends with respect to light.”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing light from 100 to 50% slightly delayed leaf appearance.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- 50% lighte0
- Outcome
- appearance of leavese0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Qualifier
- slightlye0
- Comparator
- 100e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A reduction from 100 to 50% light delayed the appearance of leaves slightly”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing light from 100 to 50% did not change leaf-area expansion patterns.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- 50% lighte2
- Outcome
- patterns of leaf-area expansione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- 100e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“had no effect on patterns of leaf-area expansion such as the rate and duration of expansion of individual leaves and the distribution of leaf area among nodes”
e1“Sunflower”
e2“A reduction from 100 to 50% light delayed the appearance of leaves slightly”
e3“A reduction from 100 to 50% light delayed the appearance of leaves slightly”
Claim · model-written summary
Further light reduction significantly reduced leaf size by slowing expansion rates.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- further reduction in lighte0
- Outcome
- size of all leavese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A further reduction in light, however, significantly reduced the size of all leaves through effects on the rates at which leaves expanded.”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Light level did not affect the leaf expansion period.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- light levele0
- Outcome
- period for which leaves expandede0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no effect of light level on the period for which leaves expanded.”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium light reduced specific leaf weight to 76% of control.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- medium lighte2
- Outcome
- specific leaf weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 76%e0
- Comparator
- control levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“specific leaf weight was significantly reduced to 76% of control levels.”
e1“Sunflower”
e2“Total plant weights declined to 89% (not significant) at the medium light level”
Claim · model-written summary
Lowest light reduced specific leaf weight to 59% of control.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- lowest light regimee0
- Outcome
- specific leaf weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 59%e0
- Comparator
- control levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest light regime further reduced specific leaf weight to only 59% of control levels.”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium light reduced total plant weight to 89% of control without statistical significance.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- medium light levele0
- Outcome
- Total plant weightse0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 89%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total plant weights declined to 89% (not significant) at the medium light level”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light significantly reduced total plant weight to 47% of control.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- low levele0
- Outcome
- Total plant weightse2
- Direction
- declinede3
- Value
- 47%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly to 47% at the low level”
e1“Sunflower”
e2“Total plant weights declined to 89% (not significant) at the medium light level”
e3“Total plant weights declined to 89% (not significant) at the medium light level”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced light marginally lowered harvest index without statistical significance.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse1
- Treatment
- a reduction in lighte0
- Outcome
- harvest indexe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“harvest index was marginally, though not significantly, decreased by a reduction in light”
e1“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium light significantly reduced seed production to 86% of control.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse2
- Treatment
- medium light levele1
- Outcome
- seed productione0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 86e0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant reductions in seed production (86 and 44% of controls)”
e1“medium light level”
e2“Sunflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light significantly reduced seed production to 44% of control.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse2
- Treatment
- low levele1
- Outcome
- seed productione0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 44%e0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant reductions in seed production (86 and 44% of controls)”
e1“low level”
e2“Sunflower”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →in vitro · yield · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →light · growth · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →in vitro · growth · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 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.