Abstract
Abstract Growth of chrysanthemum ( Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat) was studied as a function of quantum flux density (QFD), QFD duration, and temperature. Unrooted cuttings were rooted under high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps in a controlled environment (CE) at 4 QFD, 3 QFD durations, and 3 temperatures, and plants were grown to flowering in a greenhouse to determine treatment effect on flowering time and plant size at flowering. Increasing QFD duration was more effective in increasing root and shoot dry weight than increasing QFD. Root and shoot dry weights were greatest at 21°C after 13 days rooting. Light treatment during rooting had no effect on flowering time or shoot length at flowering, but there were differences of up to 35% in fresh weight at flowering. A photochlorosis was observed on all treatments irradiated with HPS lamps; the photochlorosis was irreparable at a QFD of 420 μEm −2 s −1 .
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Increasing light duration raised root and shoot dry weight more effectively than increasing flux density.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemum
.jpeg?width=60)
Chrysanthemumt0 - Treatment
- Increasing QFD duratione0
- Outcome
- root and shoot dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- increasing QFDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpeg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Increasing QFD duration was more effective in increasing root and shoot dry weight than increasing QFD”
t0“Chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Root and shoot dry weights peaked at 21°C after 13 days of rooting.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Outcome
- Root and shoot dry weightse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 21°Ce0
- Qualifier
- after 13 days rootinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root and shoot dry weights were greatest at 21°C after 13 days rooting”
t0“Chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Rooting light treatment did not change flowering time or shoot length at flowering.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- Light treatment during rootinge0
- Outcome
- flowering time or shoot length at floweringe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Light treatment during rooting had no effect on flowering time or shoot length at flowering”
t0“Chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Rooting light treatment produced fresh weight differences at flowering of up to 35%.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- Light treatment during rootinge1
- Outcome
- fresh weight at floweringe0
- Direction
- differencese0
- Value
- 35%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but there were differences of up to 35% in fresh weight at flowering”
t0“Chrysanthemum”
e1“Light treatment during rooting”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS lamp irradiation caused photochlorosis across all treatments.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- irradiated with HPS lampse0
- Outcome
- photochlorosise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A photochlorosis was observed on all treatments irradiated with HPS lamps”
t0“Chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Photochlorosis was irreversible at 420 μEm −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Outcome
- photochlorosis was irreparablee0
- Value
- 420 μEm −2 s −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the photochlorosis was irreparable at a QFD of 420 μEm −2 s −1”
t0“Chrysanthemum”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 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.