Abstract
To research the energy-saving and high-efficiency lighting parameters suitable for lettuce growth,LEDA and LEDB lighting were used.LEDA lighting was composed of red with peak at 660 nm(R)and blue with peak at 450 nm(B),LEDB lighting was composed of red with peak at 630 nm(R)and blue with peak at 460 nm(B).Treatments with R/B ratio of 6,8,10 were performed with LEDA and LEDB respectively.Results showed that photosynthetic rate of lettuce was significantly higher under LED lighting than under fluorescent lamp.There were no significant differences in photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate,stomatal conductance,intercellular CO2 concentration,vitamin C,total sugar and nitrate content of lettuce between LEDA and LEDB.All those indices showed the same change trend with R/B,and they were the best at the R/B ratio of 8(LEDA2,LEDB2).Compared with fluorescent treatment,photosynthetic rate and vitamin C content increased 38% and 8.3% respectively,while nitrate content decreased 9.2% in LEDA2 treatment,and photosynthetic rate increased 48% and nitrate content decreased 6.5% in LEDB2 treatment.The content of chlorophyll a,b and(a + b)were significant higher under LEDA lighting than under LEDB lighting,and were the highest under LEDA3 and LEDB2 treatments,respectively.In addition,results of power consumption of lighting device showed,compared with LEDA lighting and fluorescent,the power consumption per plant of LEDB lighting decreased 53.3% and 27.2%,respectively.Thus,LED lighting composed of red with peak at 630 nm and blue with peak at 460 nm,while R/B = 8,not only could improve photosynthesis rate and quality,but also is more energy-saving than other treatments.The aim of efficient and energy-saving was achieved from above three aspects.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
LED lighting increased lettuce photosynthetic rate relative to fluorescent lamps.
- Taxon
- lettuce
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- LED lightinge0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- fluorescent lampe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthetic rate of lettuce was significantly higher under LED lighting than under fluorescent lamp.”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic and quality indices showed no significant difference between LEDA and LEDB.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDAe0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate,stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- LEDBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate,stomatal conductance,intercellular CO2 concentration,vitamin C,total sugar and nitrate content of lettuce between LEDA and LEDB.”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Vitamin C, sugar, nitrate and intercellular CO2 likewise did not differ significantly between LEDA and LEDB.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDAe0
- Outcome
- intercellular CO2 concentration,vitamin C,total sugare0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- LEDBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate,stomatal conductance,intercellular CO2 concentration,vitamin C,total sugar and nitrate content of lettuce between LEDA and LEDB.”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
The measured indices were best at a red-to-blue ratio of 8.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- R/B ratio of 8e0
- Outcome
- beste0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they were the best at the R/B ratio of 8(LEDA2,LEDB2).”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDA2 raised lettuce photosynthetic rate by 38% relative to fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDA2e1
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 38%e0
- Comparator
- fluorescent treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthetic rate and vitamin C content increased 38% and 8.3% respectively”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“LEDA2 treatment”
e2“Compared with fluorescent treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDA2 raised lettuce vitamin C content by 8.3% relative to fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDA2e1
- Outcome
- vitamin C contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8.3%e0
- Comparator
- fluorescent treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthetic rate and vitamin C content increased 38% and 8.3% respectively”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“LEDA2 treatment”
e2“Compared with fluorescent treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDA2 lowered lettuce nitrate content by 9.2% relative to fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDA2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- nitrate contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 9.2%e0
- Comparator
- fluorescent treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nitrate content decreased 9.2% in LEDA2 treatment”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“Compared with fluorescent treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDB2 raised lettuce photosynthetic rate by 48% relative to fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDB2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 48%e0
- Comparator
- fluorescent treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthetic rate increased 48% and nitrate content decreased 6.5% in LEDB2 treatment.”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“Compared with fluorescent treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDB2 lowered lettuce nitrate content by 6.5% relative to fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDB2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- nitrate contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 6.5%e0
- Comparator
- fluorescent treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthetic rate increased 48% and nitrate content decreased 6.5% in LEDB2 treatment.”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“Compared with fluorescent treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDA increased chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll relative to LEDB.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDA lightinge1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll a,b and(a + b)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- LEDB lightinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The content of chlorophyll a,b and(a + b)were significant higher under LEDA lighting than under LEDB lighting”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“compared with LEDA lighting and fluorescent”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll levels peaked under LEDA3 and LEDB2 in their respective lighting groups.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDA3e0
- Outcome
- higheste0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“were the highest under LEDA3 and LEDB2 treatments,respectively.”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDB lighting used 53.3% less power per plant than LEDA.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDB lightinge0
- Outcome
- power consumption per plante0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 53.3%e0
- Comparator
- LEDA lightinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the power consumption per plant of LEDB lighting decreased 53.3% and 27.2%,respectively.”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“compared with LEDA lighting and fluorescent”
Claim · model-written summary
LEDB lighting used 27.2% less power per plant than fluorescent lighting.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LEDB lightinge0
- Outcome
- power consumption per plante0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 27.2%e0
- Comparator
- fluorescente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the power consumption per plant of LEDB lighting decreased 53.3% and 27.2%,respectively.”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“compared with LEDA lighting and fluorescent”
The same questions in other papers
light · pest · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →light · physiology: pigments · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
55 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 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.