Abstract
Light-emitting diodes often are used to substitute and enhance fluorescent or incandescent light for plants that are grown in climate-controlled environments. These lights often are chosen over other light sources because of the light-emitting diodes' durability, long life, enhanced wavelength for specific plant species, lower energy costs, lower surface heat safety risk, and easier ability to incorporate into advanced climate control systems. However, previous studies have shown that characteristics of Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (Poaceae) are altered under light-emitting diodes. Therefore, we grew 4 cultivars of sorghum in growth chambers with either conventional or light-emitting diodes. Plants were infested with either the sugarcane aphid, Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) or were un-infested (control). Sorghum grown under light-emitting diodes was shorter and produced more leaves that were wider than those of plants grown under conventional lights. Two of the cultivars had lower photosynthetic rates and reduced stomatal conductance under light-emitting diodes. When exposed to sugarcane aphids, resistant cultivars tolerated aphid feeding with reduced damage under conventional lights but were similar to susceptible cultivars when grown under light-emitting diodes. Our results suggest that light-emitting diodes affect sorghum physiology and morphology, and also compromises resistance to herbivores. Our study provides further evidence that the physiological effects of different light spectra and interaction of plant defenses and herbivores need to be tested across a broad range of plant groups.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
LED-grown sorghum was shorter than conventionally lit sorghum.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sorghum grown under light-emitting diodes was shorter and produced more leaves that were wider than those of plants grown under conventional lights.”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-grown sorghum produced more leaves than conventionally lit sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sorghum grown under light-emitting diodes was shorter and produced more leaves that were wider than those of plants grown under conventional lights.”
Claim · model-written summary
LED-grown sorghum produced wider leaves than conventionally lit sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sorghum grown under light-emitting diodes was shorter and produced more leaves that were wider than those of plants grown under conventional lights.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two sorghum cultivars had lower photosynthetic rates under LEDs.
- Treatment
- light-emitting diodese0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- Two of the cultivarse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two of the cultivars had lower photosynthetic rates and reduced stomatal conductance under light-emitting diodes.”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Two sorghum cultivars had reduced stomatal conductance under LEDs.
- Treatment
- light-emitting diodese0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- Two of the cultivarse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two of the cultivars had lower photosynthetic rates and reduced stomatal conductance under light-emitting diodes.”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Resistant sorghum cultivars tolerated aphid feeding with reduced damage under conventional lights.
- Material
- resistant cultivarse0
- Interactor
- Melanaphis sacchariMelanaphis saccharie1pest
- Outcome
- aphid feeding with reduced damagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- conventional lightse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sorghum”
e0“resistant cultivars tolerated aphid feeding with reduced damage under conventional lights”
e1“sugarcane aphid, Melanaphis sacchari”
Claim · model-written summary
Under LEDs, resistant sorghum cultivars resembled susceptible cultivars in aphid response.
- Material
- resistant cultivarse1
- Interactor
- sugarcane aphidse1pest
- Outcome
- similar to susceptible cultivarse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- susceptible cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sorghum”
e0“were similar to susceptible cultivars when grown under light-emitting diodes”
e1“When exposed to sugarcane aphids, resistant cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · physiology: gas exchange · SorghumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.