Layering contrasting photoselective filters improves the simulation of foliar shade

Table 3 Average data collected neutral density (ND) photoselective filters

Filter	Brand	R:FR^a	PPE^b	B:G^c	PPF reduction^d	UV-A PF^e
					%	µmol m⁻² s⁻¹
0.15 ND	LEE	0.85 A^f	0.69 A	0.84 F	29.7 H	50.4 BC
	e-colour +	0.84 A	0.68 B	0.86 E	36.0 G	45.5 C
	Cinegel	0.76 B	0.68 B	0.86 E	36.0 G	66.3 A
0.30 ND	LEE	0.61 C	0.64 C	0.83 G	51.7 F	27.3 DE
	e-colour +	0.61 C	0.64 C	0.88 D	53.0 EF	32.3 D
	Cinegel	0.53 D	0.64 C	0.86 E	54.0 E	54.1 B
0.60 ND	LEE	0.36 E	0.56 D	0.78 H	76.0 D	10.1 FG
	e-colour +	0.30 F	0.53 E	0.91 B	79.7 C	12.5 F
	Cinegel	0.23 G	0.53 E	0.90 BC	79.7 C	32.6 D
0.90 ND	LEE	0.18 GH	0.42 H	0.77 I	90.0 A	2.5 H
	e-colour +	0.18 GH	0.43 G	0.95 A	88.3 AB	6.1 GH
	Cinegel	0.13 H	0.45 F	0.89 CD	88.0 B	24.4 E

^aR:FR = 655–665/725–735
^bPPE = Phytochrome photoequilibria
^cB:G = 420–490/500–570
^dPPF reduction = Percent reduction in PPF relative to full sun
^eUV-A PF = Photon flux between 340 and 399 nm
^fData are presented as averages acquired on three different clear sky or mostly sunny days between 13:00 and 14:00 h: 27 May, 30 May, and 12 June 2020. Means are only compared within column and were separated with Fisher’s LSD. Means followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05). Data collected under full sun were on average; R:FR = 1.15, PPE = 0.72, B:G = 0.87, PPF = 1719 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹, UV-A PF = 86 µmol m⁻² s⁻

ISSN: 1746-4811