{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024746192893401017, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02728426395939086, 'mean_word_length': 4.819188191881919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pampered inside, pestered outside? Differences and similarities between plants growing in controlled conditions and in the field.

I. 839 II. 839 III. 841 IV. 845 V. 847 VI. 848 VII. 849 VIII. 851 851 852 References 852 Appendix A1 854 SUMMARY: Plant biologists often grow plants in growth chambers or glasshouses with the ultimate aim to understand or improve plant performance in the field. What is often overlooked is how results from controlled conditions translate back to field situations. A meta-analysis showed that lab-grown plants had faster growth rates, higher nitrogen concentrations and different morphology. They remained smaller, however, because the lab plants had grown for a much shorter time. We compared glasshouse and growth chamber conditions with those in the field and found that the ratio between the daily amount of light and daily temperature (photothermal ratio) was consistently lower under controlled conditions. This may strongly affect a plant's source : sink ratio and hence its overall morphology and physiology. Plants in the field also grow at higher plant densities. A second meta-analysis showed that a doubling in density leads on average to 34% smaller plants with strong negative effects on tiller or side-shoot formation but little effect on plant height. We found the r2 between lab and field phenotypic data to be rather modest (0.26). Based on these insights, we discuss various alternatives to facilitate the translation from lab results to the field, including several options to apply growth regimes closer to field conditions.