Abstract
White (W) light-emitting diode (LED) light has been used as an efficient light source for commercial plant cultivation in vertical farming. This study aimed to examine the effect of W LED light sources on the growth and quality of butterhead and romaine lettuce. Three W LED light sources including normal W light (NWL) which has 450 nm as its pumping wavelength and two specific W lights (SWL1 and SWL2) with shorter blue peak wavelength (437 nm) were used to grow lettuce in comparison to a red (R) and blue (B) LED combination. As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment. Some phenolic and flavonol contents were increased in the RB treatment, whereas SWL2 treatment stimulated the accumulation of other phenolic and flavonol compounds. Meanwhile, neither NWL nor SWL1 treatments increased the individual phenolic and flavonol contents in either cultivar (except for some flavonols in romaine lettuce in the SWL1 group). In addition, light and energy use efficiencies were also highest in the SWL1 and SWL2 treatments. These results illustrate the positive effects of specific W LED light on lettuce growth and quality, and suggest that the specific W LED light sources, especially SWL2, could be preferably used in vertical farming.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
SWL1 and SWL2 gave more growth of both lettuce cultivars than the red and blue (RB) treatment.
- Taxon
- lettuce
Lactuca sativae0 - Treatment
- SWL1 and SWL2 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- RB treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Some phenolic and flavonol contents were increased in the RB treatment.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- RB treatmente1
- Outcome
- phenolic and flavonol contentse1
- Direction
- increasede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment”
e1“Some phenolic and flavonol contents were increased in the RB treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
SWL2 stimulated the accumulation of other phenolic and flavonol compounds.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- SWL2 treatmente2
- Outcome
- accumulation of other phenolic and flavonol compoundse2
- Direction
- stimulatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment”
e2“whereas SWL2 treatment stimulated the accumulation of other phenolic and flavonol compounds”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither NWL nor SWL1 increased the individual phenolic and flavonol contents in either cultivar.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- NWL nor SWL1 treatmentse3
- Outcome
- individual phenolic and flavonol contentse3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment”
e3“neither NWL nor SWL1 treatments increased the individual phenolic and flavonol contents in either cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Light and energy use efficiencies were highest in the SWL1 and SWL2 treatments.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- SWL1 and SWL2 treatmentse4
- Outcome
- light and energy use efficienciese4
- Direction
- higheste4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment”
e4“light and energy use efficiencies were also highest in the SWL1 and SWL2 treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Specific W LED light sources, especially SWL2, could be preferably used in vertical farming (authors' recommendation).
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- SWL2e5
- Outcome
- could be preferably used in vertical farminge5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, SWL1 and SWL2 treatments with the same electrical power or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) resulted in more growth of both lettuce cultivars compared to RB treatment”
e5“suggest that the specific W LED light sources, especially SWL2, could be preferably used in vertical farming”
The same questions in other papers
light · quality: phytochemicals · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 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.