Layering contrasting photoselective filters improves the simulation of foliar shade

Table 5 Average data collected under plus green (PG) photoselective filters

Filter	Brand	R:FR^a	PPE^b	B:G^c	PPF reduction^d	UV-A PF^e
					%	µmol m⁻² s⁻¹
1/4 PG	LEE	0.97 AB^f	0.70 C	0.71 AB	20.0 D	54.6 AB
	e-colour +	1.00 A	0.71 B	0.67 BC	19.0 D	39.1 CD
	Cinegel	1.06 A	0.71 A	0.74 A	17.3 D	67.9 A
1/2 PG	LEE	0.86 CD	0.69 D	0.62 C	25.7 C	47.8 BC
	e-colour +	0.96 ABC	0.70 BC	0.63 C	24.7 C	30.5 D
	Cinegel	0.87 BCD	0.70 C	0.62 C	27.3 C	66.9 A
Full PG	LEE	0.65 F	0.67 F	0.44 D	39.3 A	30.4 D
	e-colour +	0.78 DE	0.68 E	0.47 D	36.0 AB	13.4 E
	Cinegel	0.75 EF	0.69 D	0.47 D	34.7 B	58.1 AB

^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⁻¹

ISSN: 1746-4811