Abstract
For precise phenotyping, Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. is grown under controlled conditions with fluorescent lamps as the predominant light source. Replacement by systems based on light emitting diodes (LED) could improve energy efficiency and stability of light quality and intensity. To determine whether this affects the reproducibility of results obtained under fluorescent lamps, four Arabidopsis accessions and a phytochrome mutant were grown and phenotyped under two different LED types or under fluorescent lamps. All genotypes had significantly higher rosette weight and seed mass and developed faster under LED light than under fluorescent lamps. However, differences between genotypes were reproducible independent of the light source. Chlorophyll content, photosynthetic complex accumulation and light response curves of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were indistinguishable under LED and fluorescent light. Principal component analysis of leaf metabolite concentrations revealed that the effect of a change from fluorescent light to LED light was small compared with the diurnal effect, which explains 74% of the variance and the age effect during vegetative growth (12%). Altogether, the replacement of fluorescent lamps by LED allowed Arabidopsis cultivation and reproduction of results obtained under fluorescent light.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Arabidopsis genotypes had significantly higher rosette weight and seed mass under LED light than under fluorescent lamps.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thaliana
Arabidopsis thalianat0 - Treatment
- LED lighte1
- Outcome
- rosette weight and seed masse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- fluorescent lampse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e1“All genotypes had significantly higher rosette weight and seed mass and developed faster under LED light than under fluorescent lamps”
Claim · model-written summary
Arabidopsis genotypes developed faster under LED light than under fluorescent lamps.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis thalianat0
- Treatment
- LED lighte1
- Outcome
- developede1
- Direction
- fastere1
- Comparator
- fluorescent lampse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e1“All genotypes had significantly higher rosette weight and seed mass and developed faster under LED light than under fluorescent lamps”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences between Arabidopsis genotypes were reproducible independent of the light source.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis thalianat0
- Outcome
- differences between genotypes were reproduciblee2
- Qualifier
- independent of the light sourcee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e2“However, differences between genotypes were reproducible independent of the light source”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll content, photosynthetic complex accumulation and chlorophyll fluorescence light response curves were indistinguishable under LED and fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis thalianat0
- Treatment
- LEDe3
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll content, photosynthetic complex accumulation and light response curves of chlorophyll fluorescence parameterse3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Comparator
- fluorescent lighte3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e3“Chlorophyll content, photosynthetic complex accumulation and light response curves of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were indistinguishable under LED and fluorescent light”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of changing from fluorescent to LED light on Arabidopsis leaf metabolite concentrations was small compared with the diurnal effect.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis thalianat0
- Treatment
- a change from fluorescent light to LED lighte4
- Outcome
- leaf metabolite concentrationse4
- Direction
- smalle4
- Comparator
- the diurnal effecte4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e4“Principal component analysis of leaf metabolite concentrations revealed that the effect of a change from fluorescent light to LED light was small compared with the diurnal effect, which explains 74% of the variance”
Claim · model-written summary
The age effect during vegetative growth explained 12% of the variance in Arabidopsis leaf metabolite concentrations.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thalianaArabidopsis thalianat0
- Outcome
- age effect during vegetative growthe5
- Value
- 12%e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e5“the age effect during vegetative growth (12%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing fluorescent lamps by LED allowed reproduction of Arabidopsis results obtained under fluorescent light.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsise6
- Outcome
- reproduction of resultse6
- Comparator
- fluorescent lighte6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
e6“the replacement of fluorescent lamps by LED allowed Arabidopsis cultivation and reproduction of results obtained under fluorescent light”
The same questions in other papers
light · physiology: photosynthesis · Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 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.