Fig 1.
University of Bologna experimental greenhouse.
a) shows the greenhouse location (red star). Black line represents the Italian border, blue line the Municipality of Bologna, the green line the Municipality of Imola. (© OpenStreetMap contributors. Data available under the Open Database License) b) The experimental greenhouse (outside view) c) The location of the experimental area in the greenhouse d) the experimental benches during the trial.
Table 1.
LED light characterization for each treatment.
Fig 2.
Node and central unit of the monitoring system.
Table 2.
Table of sensor characteristics.
Resolution and accuracy of the sensors used for the monitoring activity.
Table 3.
Values of temperature and relative humidity assumed as thresholds for the uniformity of greenhouse environmental conditions.
Table 4.
Analysis of the temperatures measured in each treatment.
Data are expressed in Celsius degree.
Table 5.
Analysis of the relative humidity measured in each treatment.
Data are expressed in percentage.
Table 6.
Characterization of temperature, relative humidity and natural light (average values) measured in the four periods of the experiment.
Fig 3.
Plant height (a), number of sprouts per plant (b), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (c) at various days after treatment (DAT) in Taxus baccata exposed to different light intensity. Circles, squares, diamonds and triangles indicate the control and the R/B/Fr LED lamps at 50, 100 and 150 μM m-2 s-1, respectively. In plant height, the 95% confidence bands for the time trends of the four treatments are shown; in the other two traits, vertical bars indicate ± SE (n = 6); n.s., (+), * and ** indicate non-significant and significant at P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05 and P ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Table 7.
Number of sprouts per plant at various days after treatment (DAT) in Taxus baccata exposed to different light quality (R, red; B, blue; Fr, far red) at 100 μM m-2 s-1.
Data are means ± SE (n = 6).
Table 8.
Plant height (cm) at various days after treatment (DAT) in Taxus baccata exposed to different light quality (R, red; B, blue; Fr, far red) at 100 μM m-2 s-1.
Data are means ± SE (n = 6).
Table 9.
Normalized difference vegetation index (adim.) at various days after treatment (DAT) in Taxus baccata exposed to different light quality (R, red; B, blue; Fr, far red) at 100 μM m-2 s-1.
Data are means ± SE (n = 6).
Fig 4.
Front, rear and above views of a plant from Control (1), R/B/Fr 100 (2), and B 100 (3) treatments on 9 December 2019.
Fig 5.
1H NMR based principal component analysis of T. baccata samples under different LED light treatments.
A) Score scatter plot B) Loading column plot. R2(cum) = 0.552, Q2(cum) = 0.442.
Fig 6.
A) 1H NMR based PCA of T. baccata samples under different LED light treatments at 28 days and 56 days since treatments started. R2(cum) = 0.871, Q2(cum) = 0.674. B) Score scatter plot of OPLS-DA model using sampling time as discriminant classes. C) S-plot of OPLS-DA model.
Fig 7.
Comparison between 1H NMR spectra of baccatin III and plant number 2 at 56 DAT.
On top are given extended regions from δ 0.6 to 2.6 and from δ 5.5 to 8.4.