## 3 Results and Discussion
### Anova Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Response** & **R2** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Pred-** \\ **R2** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Equation**} \\  & & **White = YES** & & **White = NO** \\ \hline Number of plants & 0.44 & 0.32 & & & \\ Days for germination & 0.12 & 0.07 & & & \\ Height & 0.76 & 0.70 & & =28.7796 + 15.2203 * Distance & \\ Wet mass & 0.88 & 0.83 & =0.6871 + 0.4952 * Distance & =0.4957 + 0.8752 * Distance & \\ Dry mass & 0.92 & 0.82 & \(=\)\(-\)0.0024 \(-\) 0.0093 * Distance + & =-0.0169 + 0.0346 * Distance + \\  & & & 0.003 * HR-DB * 0.0320 * Distance & 0.0035 * HR-DB * 0.0320 * Distance \\ LAI & 0.93 & 0.91 & =0.9884 + 0.2941 * Distance + & =0.8569 + 0.6771 * Distance + \\  & & & 0.3199 * Distance & 0.3199 * Distance \\ SLA & 0.81 & 0.67 & \(=\)\(690.7412\) * \(-\) 82.6704 * Distance \(-\) & =653.9108 \(-\) 82.6704 * Distance \(-\) \\  & & & 7.7299 * HR-DB * 0.0863 * HR-DB & 7.79299 * HR-DB * 0.0863 * HR-DB \\ Number of leaves & 0.77 & 0.63 & \(=\)\(3.3393\) + 0.6230 * Distance \(-\) 0.0133 * HR-DB & =2.7819 + 1.1666 * Distance \(-\) 0.0135 * HR-DB \\ Leaves wet mass & 0.89 & 0.84 & =0.5612 + 0.3854 * Distance & \\ \hline
**Response** & **R2** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Pred-** \\ **R2** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**White = YES**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Equation**} \\  & & **White = NO** \\ \hline Stem length & 0.86 & 0.76 & =20.8343 + 8.1046 * Distance + 0.0086 * HR-DB \\ Stem wet mass & 0.87 & 0.81 & =0.1941 + 0.0280 * Distance \(-\) 0.0011 * HR-DB * 0.0473 * Distance \\  & & & \(=\)\(-\)\(4.4016\) + 0.0272 * Distance \(-\) & \(-\)\(-\)\(4.5812\) + 0.3701 * Distance \(-\) \\ Stem dry mass & 0.94 & 0.88 & 0.0006 * HR-DB 0.0058 * Distance * HR-DB & 0.0006 * HR-DB 0.0058 * Distance * HR-DB \\  & & & + 0.3453 * Distance & + 0.3453 * Distance \\ Stem diameter & 0.83 & 0.76 & =1.7462 + 0.2290 * Distance & =1.5396 + 0.4969 * Distance \\ Water & 0.90 & 0.83 & =044.5918 + 0.6258 * Distance + & =436.0408 + 39.6258 * Distance \(-\) \\  & & & 0.0367 * HR-DB & 0.5333 * HR-DB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: ANOVA results. Figure 5: 3D surface contour plots of two different responses: dry mass, without **(a)** and with **(b)** white LEDs; stem dry mass, without **(c)** and with **(d)** White LEDs. Reference to Table 7 for light combination code. Figure 6: 3D surface contour plots of different responses: LAI, without (**a**) and with (**b**) white LEDs; water, without (**c**) and with (**d**) white LEDs. Reference to Table 7 for light combination code. Figure 7: Effects sizes of the most relevant independent variable on several significant responses related to the overall plant. (**a**) Graphical trend and (**b**) numerical coefficients (error bar = 0.05%, too small to be visible on the graph). Figure 8: Effects sizes of the most relevant independent variable on several significant responses related to leaf. (**a**) Graphical trend and (**b**) numerical coefficients (error bar = 0.05%, too small to be visible on the graph). Figure 10: Effects sizes of the most relevant independent variable on the response water. (**a**) Graphical trend and (**b**) numerical coefficients (error bar = 0.05%, too small to be visible on the graph). Figure 9: Effects sizes of the most relevant independent variable on several significant responses related to stem. (**a**) Graphical trend and (**b**) numerical coefficients (error bar = 0.05%, too small to be visible on the graph). In Figures 5 and 6, 3D surface graphs representing graphically the calculated models with R\({}^{2}\) > 0.9 are shown. In Figure 5, the two responses related with dry mass (_Dry mass_ and _Stem dry mass_) were reported demonstrating for first how much the mathematical model changes by employing (figures on the right) or not (figures on the left) _White_ LEDs. Both the responses are favored by the absence of the _White_ LED.