Abstract
The senescence of maize and hydrangea leaves after detachment and darkening was studied in terms of the loss of chlorophyll and protein. Chlorophyll contents of the detached leaves decreased in the dark in both plants. Cycloheximide at 0.1 mM effectively inhibited the loss of chlorophyll in maize, but did not do so in hydrangea. Continuous irradiation with white light of 4.6 Wm−2 prevented the loss of chlorophyll in hydrangea leaves, while it caused bleaching of maize leaves. Reducing agents such as ascorbic acid and glutathione did not prevent the bleaching by light. In maize leaves, the amount of protein decreased in the dark more slowly than that of chlorophyll, and cycloheximide slightly prevented the protein decrease. Continuous light irradiation of 4.6 Wm−2 delayed the loss of protein more effectively than cycloheximide did.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
In maize, chlorophyll content of detached leaves decreased in the dark
- Organ / stage
- detached leavese1
- Treatment
- in the darke1
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll contentse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e1“Chlorophyll contents of the detached leaves decreased in the dark in both plants”
Claim · model-written summary
In hydrangea, chlorophyll content of detached leaves decreased in the dark
- Organ / stage
- detached leavese1
- Treatment
- in the darke1
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll contentse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
HydrangeaNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Hydrangea”
e1“Chlorophyll contents of the detached leaves decreased in the dark in both plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Cycloheximide at 0.1 mM inhibited chlorophyll loss in maize leaves
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e2“Cycloheximide at 0.1 mM effectively inhibited the loss of chlorophyll in maize, but did not do so in hydrangea”
Claim · model-written summary
Cycloheximide at 0.1 mM did not inhibit chlorophyll loss in hydrangea leaves
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Hydrangea”
e2“Cycloheximide at 0.1 mM effectively inhibited the loss of chlorophyll in maize, but did not do so in hydrangea”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous white light of 4.6 Wm−2 prevented chlorophyll loss in hydrangea leaves
- Treatment
- Continuous irradiation with white light of 4.6 Wm−2e3
- Outcome
- loss of chlorophylle3
- Direction
- preventede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Hydrangea”
e3“Continuous irradiation with white light of 4.6 Wm−2 prevented the loss of chlorophyll in hydrangea leaves, while it caused bleaching of maize leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous white light of 4.6 Wm−2 caused bleaching of maize leaves
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e3“Continuous irradiation with white light of 4.6 Wm−2 prevented the loss of chlorophyll in hydrangea leaves, while it caused bleaching of maize leaves”
e4“while it caused bleaching of maize leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Ascorbic acid and glutathione did not prevent light-induced bleaching of maize leaves
- Treatment
- Reducing agents such as ascorbic acid and glutathionee5
- Outcome
- bleachinge5
- Direction
- did not prevente5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e5“Reducing agents such as ascorbic acid and glutathione did not prevent the bleaching by light”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous light of 4.6 Wm−2 delayed protein loss in maize leaves more effectively than cycloheximide
- Treatment
- Continuous light irradiation of 4.6 Wm−2e7
- Outcome
- loss of proteine7
- Direction
- delayede7
- Qualifier
- more effectivelye7
- Comparator
- cycloheximidee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e7“Continuous light irradiation of 4.6 Wm−2 delayed the loss of protein more effectively than cycloheximide did”
The same questions in other papers
ascorbic acid · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
radiation · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →light · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →light · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.