Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 9 – uploaded by Maria Hajos

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
and yield. Several studies mention that in many species, there is a high correlation between SPAD value and extractable chlorophyll content (Le6n et al., 2007). The highest SPAD values were measured for iceberg lettuce (‘Great Lakes 659’) and cos-lettuce (‘Romaine lettuce’), and these genotypes also had the most intense green colour (Figure 12). There was no statistically significant difference between the two types. The lowest SPAD value was measured by the ‘Lollo Bionda’. Son & Oh (2013) have measured a higher SPAD value by the red leaf type “Sunmang’ (more than 20 SPAD value) compared to the green leaf type ’Grand Rapid TBR’ (less than 20) under various combinations of red and blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Figure 12 and yield. Several studies mention that in many species, there is a high correlation between SPAD value and extractable chlorophyll content (Le6n et al., 2007). The highest SPAD values were measured for iceberg lettuce (‘Great Lakes 659’) and cos-lettuce (‘Romaine lettuce’), and these genotypes also had the most intense green colour (Figure 12). There was no statistically significant difference between the two types. The lowest SPAD value was measured by the ‘Lollo Bionda’. Son & Oh (2013) have measured a higher SPAD value by the red leaf type “Sunmang’ (more than 20 SPAD value) compared to the green leaf type ’Grand Rapid TBR’ (less than 20) under various combinations of red and blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Related Figures (11)

Figure 1: Relationship between head weight (g) and stem length. Means followed by the same letters do not different according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 1: Relationship between head weight (g) and stem length. Means followed by the same letters do not different according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 2: Lettuce head structure (1-5) by different types lettuce varieties. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 2: Lettuce head structure (1-5) by different types lettuce varieties. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
‘igure 5: Closing of the base (1-5) by different types and varieties of lettuce. Different letters between cultivars denote significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Figure 3-4: ’King of May’— compact head and *Lollo Rosso’ — non-heading variety.
‘igure 5: Closing of the base (1-5) by different types and varieties of lettuce. Different letters between cultivars denote significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Figure 3-4: ’King of May’— compact head and *Lollo Rosso’ — non-heading variety.
Figure 9-10: ’Lollo Bionda’ — head shape and ’Lollo Bionda’ — leaf shape. Figure 7-8: "Romaine lettuce’ — head shape and ’Romaine lettuce’ — leaf shape.
Figure 9-10: ’Lollo Bionda’ — head shape and ’Lollo Bionda’ — leaf shape. Figure 7-8: "Romaine lettuce’ — head shape and ’Romaine lettuce’ — leaf shape.
Figure 6: Evolution of the shape index of lettuce leaf and heads by different types. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 6: Evolution of the shape index of lettuce leaf and heads by different types. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 12: SPAD value of different lettuce types and varieties. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05). Figure 11: Evaluation of connection of shape index and NDVI value by different lettuce type and variety. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 12: SPAD value of different lettuce types and varieties. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05). Figure 11: Evaluation of connection of shape index and NDVI value by different lettuce type and variety. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Table 3: Pearson’s correlation coefficients among physiological and biochemical parameters by lettuce earson correlation coefficient of a part of parameters. Correlation was significant at *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 (2-tailed)
Table 3: Pearson’s correlation coefficients among physiological and biochemical parameters by lettuce earson correlation coefficient of a part of parameters. Correlation was significant at *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 (2-tailed)
Table 2: Total polyphenol content (TPC) of different lettuce varieties.
Table 2: Total polyphenol content (TPC) of different lettuce varieties.
Figure 13: Dry matter content (%) of different lettuce types and varieties. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Figure 13: Dry matter content (%) of different lettuce types and varieties. Means followed by the same letters do not differ according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Related topics:
HorticultureHorticultural Science
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved