Abstract
Abstract Supplemental lighting nightly during late spring and early summer with Wide Spectrum Gro-Lux fluorescent lamps at 29 lamp watts/ft 2 has been found to improve the development of newly planted dormant and cut-back rose plants. Lighted plants of cvs Electra, Red American Beauty and Forever Yours produced a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants. Plants receiving supplemental lighting had significant increases in the no. of flowering stems developing after a hard pinch, and generally significant increases in bottom breaks. Cut flower production was increased 18-41% after plant development had been completed, but for ‘Electra’ this increase was in flower stem lengths less than 15 inches.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental lighting improved development of newly planted and cut-back roses.
- Taxon
- rose plantse0
- Treatment
- Supplemental lighting nightly during late spring and early summer with Wide Spectrum Gro-Lux fluorescent lamps at 29 lamp watts/ft 2e0
- Outcome
- developmente0
- Direction
- improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental lighting nightly during late spring and early summer with Wide Spectrum Gro-Lux fluorescent lamps at 29 lamp watts/ft 2 has been found to improve the development of newly planted dormant and cut-back rose plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lighted Electra roses had a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants.
Verbatim
e0“Lighted plants of cvs Electra, Red American Beauty and Forever Yours produced a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lighted Red American Beauty roses had a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants.
Verbatim
e0“Lighted plants of cvs Electra, Red American Beauty and Forever Yours produced a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lighted Forever Yours roses had a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants.
Verbatim
e0“Lighted plants of cvs Electra, Red American Beauty and Forever Yours produced a higher percentage of flowering stems than unlighted plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental light significantly increased flowering stems after a hard pinch.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge0
- Outcome
- no. of flowering stems developing after a hard pinche0
- Direction
- increasese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e0“Plants receiving supplemental lighting had significant increases in the no. of flowering stems developing after a hard pinch”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental light generally significantly increased bottom breaks.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge1
- Outcome
- bottom breakse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- generallye0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e0“generally significant increases in bottom breaks”
e1“Plants receiving supplemental lighting”
Claim · model-written summary
After development, supplemental light increased cut flower production by 18-41%.
- Taxon
- Rosest0
- Treatment
- supplemental lightinge1
- Outcome
- Cut flower productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18-41%e0
- Qualifier
- after plant development had been completede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e0“Cut flower production was increased 18-41% after plant development had been completed”
e1“supplemental lighting”
Claim · model-written summary
For Electra, the production increase was in stems shorter than 15 inches.
Verbatim
t0“Greenhouse Roses”
e0“but for ‘Electra’ this increase was in flower stem lengths less than 15 inches.”
The same questions in other papers
light · phenology · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →light · yield · RosaPositive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →light · phenology · RosaPositive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →light · growth · RosaPositive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 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.