ReviewPhysiologia plantarum
Far-Red Light Supplementation in Tomato Cultivation: A Quantitative Review of Morphological and Physiological Responses.
Review in Physiologia plantarum. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Far-red (FR) light at wavelengths 700-800 nm is abundant in sunlight but largely absent from artificial light sources. Standard Light-Emitting Diodes emit little to no FR light. Recently, research has focused on the effects of FR light on the growth and development of crops, like tomatoes. However, findings on FR effects on tomatoes vary, with some effects even depending on the geographic location. To unravel the variability of the results, this review identified all relevant studies that quantified the FR-induced responses in tomato growth, morphology, fruit development and photosynthetic parameters. The studies were categorised into controlled-environment studies with artificial lighting (23 studies) and semi-controlled studies with mixed artificial and sunlight (20 studies). To allow comparison between the FR treatments, three categories were established representing the given FR proportions at shade, sunlight or artificial levels. While FR responses were often cultivar-dependent, known responses were confirmed for several parameters. Supplemental FR light increased plant height and often enhanced fresh weight, dry weight and leaf area, while stem diameter showed a decreasing response to FR. FR typically reduced leaf chlorophyll content, but its effects on photosynthetic efficiency varied. Importantly, variability in results appeared to arise from factors related to experimental setups rather than from confirmed FR quantities. To our knowledge, this is the first review providing a deep comparative analysis of FR treatments and experimental conditions in relation to tomato responses. This knowledge is crucial for planning controlled-environment lighting strategies and will greatly facilitate and increase the value of future studies on tomato performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.