## Results  
### Morphogenesis  
In this study, the plant height, leaf length, and leaf width were the greatest for plants in SD (Figure 2A, Figure 3A,B). Additionally, the higher the light intensity of NI, the shorter the plant height, except in the NI-W treatment of 'Spain' (Figure 2A). While the leaf area and the number of leaves per plant showed different results (Figure 3C,D), the specific leaf area, SPAD value, and chlorophyll content showed a similar tendency to that of plant height (Figure 4B-D). The shoot fresh weight, root fresh weight, and root dry weight were not significantly influenced by the quality and intensity of the NIL (Table 1).  
Kalanchoe 'Spain' was not significantly affected by the NIL quality and intensity, and the plant height was the greatest when grown in SD (Figure 2B). The length and width of leaves displayed a similar tendency to that of plant height (Figure 3E,F). The area of leaves grown under R light was significantly greater than the area of leaves grown in other treatments (Figure 3H). The number of leaves was higher for plants in LD and NI treatments than for those in SD (Figure 3G). In this study, the leaf thickness tended to be higher for plants in the flowering-inducing SD and NI-B treatments (Figure 4E). It is thought that there is a correlation between flowering and the leaf thickness. The fresh and dry weights of the shoot were affected by the quality and intensity of the NIL, although there were no definite tendencies (Table 2).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Photoperiod**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Light Quality \({}^{\star}\) (A)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Light Intensity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fresh Weight (g)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dry Weight (g)**} \\ \cline{5-6}  & & & \(33.2\pm 1.3\) b & \(2.9\pm 0.1\) b & \(3.18\pm 0.1\) a & \(0.29\pm 0.0\) b \\ \hline LD & & & \(42.7\pm 0.6\) a & \(3.3\pm 0.3\) b & \(2.17\pm 0.0\) c/f & \(0.26\pm 0.0\) b \\ \hline  & & \(10\) & \(33.1\pm 1.4\) b & \(3.0\pm 0.2\) b & \(1.98\pm 0.1\) c/f & \(0.26\pm 0.0\) b \\ \hline  & B & \(20\) & \(29.9\pm 0.7\) c/d & \(2.4\pm 0.3\) b & \(2.41\pm 0.1\) b & \(0.44\pm 0.0\) a \\  & & \(10\) & \(33.1\pm 1.2\) b & \(3.0\pm 0.8\) b & \(2.40\pm 0.2\) b & \(0.30\pm 0.1\) c \\ NI & R & \(20\) & \(35.3\pm 1.2\) b & \(4.5\pm 0.2\) b & \(2.28\pm 0.1\) b & \(0.26\pm 0.0\) b \\  & W & \(10\) & \(29.6\pm 0.9\) d & \(2.2\pm 0.4\) c & \(1.99\pm 0.1\) f & \(0.21\pm 0.0\) d \\  & W & \(20\) & \(33.0\pm 0.4\) b & \(3.0\pm 0.3\) b & \(1.88\pm 0.0\) d & \(0.22\pm 0.0\) b \\  & BW & \(10\) & \(31.9\pm 1.0\) b & \(2.5\pm 0.1\) b & \(2.37\pm 0.0\) f & \(0.28\pm 0.0\) b \\  & & \(20\) & \(37.9\pm 1.1\) a & \(2.8\pm 0.2\) b & \(2.45\pm 0.1\) b & \(0.27\pm 0.0\) b \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Photoperiod} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} \\ F-test \({}^{\star}\) & & \(\begin{array}{c}\text{Photoperiod}\\ \text{Quality}\ (\text{A})\\ \text{University}\ (\text{B})\\ \text{A}\times\text{B}\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}\text{---}\\ \text{NS}\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}\text{---}\\ \text{NS}\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}\text{---}\\ \text{NS}\end{array}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{\({}^{\star}\) Refer to Figure 1 for details on the NIL quality. \({}^{\prime}\) Mean (n = 3) separation within columns by [PERSON]’s multiple range test at 5\(\%\) level. \({}^{\star}\) NS, \({}^{\star}\)Figure 3: The effects of the night interruption light (NIL) quality at 10 or 20 \(\upmu\)mol\(\cdot\)m\({}^{-2}\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) PPFD on the leaf length (**A**,**E**), leaf width (**B**,**F**), number of leaves per plant (**C**,**G**), and leaf area (**D**,**H**) of kalanchoe (_Kalanchoe blossfeldiana_) ‘Lipstick’ and ‘Spain’ measured 98 and 71 days after treatment initiation, respectively. Please refer to Figure 1 for details on the NIL quality. Vertical bars indicate the means \(\pm\) S.E. (n = 3). Values followed by different letters are significantly different by the [PERSON]’s multiple range test at \(p\leq 0.05\).