Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of light intensity during the previous and current year on growth and branching of shrubs with preformed or heterophyllous growth. Containerized, one-year-old Euonymus alata (Thunb.) Siebold 'Compacta' (dwarf burning bush), with preformed growth, and Ligustrum, obtusifolium Siebold & Zucc. var. regelianum (Koehne) Rehd. (regel privet) and Viburnum x rhytidophylloides Suring. 'Willowwood' ('Willowwood' viburnum), with heterophyllous growth, were placed in field plots in 1982 under 37%, 53%, 70%, or 100% light. After one growing season, low light intensities resulted in more leaf primordia per terminal bud of Euonymus, but number of leaves per shoot the following year did not correspond to bud morphology. Concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch were greatest from Euonymus grown in full sunlight. Light intensity did not influence bud morphology or concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch in privet and viburnum, the heterophyllous species. After one growing season, dry weights of viburnum were greatest in 53%, 70%, and 100% light. Plant dry weight accumulation during the second growing season was strongly affected by the light intensity at which the plants were grown the previous year. Viburnums grown in full sun in 1982 had the greatest dry weights in 1983. Regardless of light intensity in 1983, privet which were shaded in 1982 produced the greatest shoot dry weights in 1983. Full sunlight during 1982 increased number of branches, branch length, and internode length of viburnums in 1983. Privet grown in 100% light during 1983 were more highly branched than shaded plants. 'Willowwood' viburnum was found to be tolerant of light intensities ranging from 53% to 100% light. Regel privet was tolerant of all light intensities used. Growth of Euonymus was not significantly affected by light intensity. Results suggest that nurserymen could vary light intensity to optimize growth and branching of young plants to produce saleable plants in a shorter time.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Low light produced more leaf primordia in terminal buds of Euonymus.
EuonymusNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“low light intensities resulted in more leaf primordia per terminal bud of Euonymus”
Claim · model-written summary
Euonymus bud primordia number did not correspond to next-year shoot leaf number.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“number of leaves per shoot the following year did not correspond to bud morphology”
t0“EUONYMUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Euonymus in full sunlight had the greatest stem and root soluble sugars and starch.
- Treatment
- full sunlighte0
- Outcome
- Concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starche0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch were greatest from Euonymus grown in full sunlight”
Claim · model-written summary
Light did not influence bud morphology in privet.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Light intensity did not influence bud morphology or concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch in privet and viburnum”
Claim · model-written summary
Light did not influence stem and root soluble sugars and starch in privet.
- Taxon
- privete0
- Treatment
- Light intensitye0
- Outcome
- concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starche0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Light intensity did not influence bud morphology or concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch in privet and viburnum”
Claim · model-written summary
Light did not influence bud morphology in viburnum.
ViburnumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Light intensity did not influence bud morphology or concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch in privet and viburnum”
Claim · model-written summary
Light did not influence stem and root soluble sugars and starch in viburnum.
- Treatment
- Light intensitye0
- Outcome
- concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starche0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Light intensity did not influence bud morphology or concentrations of stem and root soluble sugars and starch in privet and viburnum”
Claim · model-written summary
Viburnum dry weights were greatest under 53%, 70% and 100% light after one season.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After one growing season, dry weights of viburnum were greatest in 53%, 70%, and 100% light”
Claim · model-written summary
Prior-year light strongly affected second-season plant dry weight.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Plant dry weight accumulation during the second growing season was strongly affected by the light intensity at which the plants were grown the previous year”
t0“THREE WOODY PLANT SPECIES”
Claim · model-written summary
Viburnum grown in full sun in 1982 had the greatest dry weights in 1983.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Viburnums grown in full sun in 1982 had the greatest dry weights in 1983”
Claim · model-written summary
Privet shaded in 1982 had the greatest shoot dry weights in 1983 regardless of 1983 light.
- Taxon
- privete0
- Treatment
- shaded in 1982e0
- Outcome
- shoot dry weightse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Qualifier
- Regardless of light intensity in 1983e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of light intensity in 1983, privet which were shaded in 1982 produced the greatest shoot dry weights in 1983”
Claim · model-written summary
Full sun in 1982 increased viburnum branch number, branch length and internode length in 1983.
- Treatment
- Full sunlight during 1982e0
- Outcome
- number of branches, branch length, and internode lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Full sunlight during 1982 increased number of branches, branch length, and internode length of viburnums in 1983”
Claim · model-written summary
Privet in 100% light in 1983 was more branched than shaded plants.
Verbatim
e0“Privet grown in 100% light during 1983 were more highly branched than shaded plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Willowwood viburnum tolerated 53% to 100% light.
Verbatim
e0“'Willowwood' viburnum was found to be tolerant of light intensities ranging from 53% to 100% light”
Claim · model-written summary
Regel privet tolerated all tested light intensities.
Verbatim
e0“Regel privet was tolerant of all light intensities used”
Claim · model-written summary
Light intensity did not significantly affect Euonymus growth.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth of Euonymus was not significantly affected by light intensity”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest varying light to improve growth and branching and shorten time to sale.
Verbatim
e0“nurserymen could vary light intensity to optimize growth and branching of young plants to produce saleable plants in a shorter time”
t0“THREE WOODY PLANT SPECIES”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · ViburnumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- 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.