Abstract
UV‐B radiation inhibits hypocotyl elongation in etiolated tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Alisa Craig) seedlings acting through a photoreceptor system with peak apparent effectiveness around 300 nm. In order lo further characterize the response and gain insight into its potential ecological significance, the time‐course of inhibition was measured and compared with the time‐course of flavonoid accumulation in the same seedlings. When a background of strong (> 620 μmol m −2 s −1 ) white light (WL) was supplemented with low irradiance UV‐B (∼ 3 μmol m −2 s −1 ). substantial (∼ 50%) inhibition of elongation occurred within 3 h of the light treatment. The magnitude of UV‐B‐induced elongation inhibition was similar in wild type (WT) and au‐mutant seedlings, in spite of the large differences between genotypes in rate and temporal pattern of elongation. In comparison to the effect of UV‐B on elongation, induction of flavonoid accumulation in WT and au seedlings undergoing de‐etiolation was a much slower response. Several UV‐absorbing compounds appeared to be specifically induced by light, and some of them accumulated faster under the WL + UV‐B treatment than under WL alone. However, there was little or no delectable effect of WL on flavonoid levels until up to 3 h of treatment, and the specific UV‐B effect was measurable only after 6 h of continuous treatment. Indeed. UV‐B‐screening properties of crude alcoholic extracts were not different between WL and WL + UV‐B treatments until after 9 or 24 h. When the light treatments were applied to seedlings that were just breaking through the soil surface. UV‐B was found to consistently retard seedling emergence. These results suggest that the rapid inhibition of elongation in de‐etiolating seedlings is an evolved response lo UV‐B, which may serve to minimize seedling exposure to sunlight until protective pigmentation responses (triggered by WL and UV‐B) have taken place in the seedlings epidermis.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Low-irradiance UV-B added to white light inhibited tomato hypocotyl elongation by about 50% within 3 hours.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Material
- cv. Alisa Craige0
- Organ / stage
- hypocotyle0
- Treatment
- low irradiance UV‐B (∼ 3 μmol m −2 s −1 )e1
- Outcome
- elongatione1
- Direction
- inhibitione1
- Value
- ∼ 50%e1
- Qualifier
- within 3 he1
- Comparator
- white light (WL)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B radiation inhibits hypocotyl elongation in etiolated tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Alisa Craig) seedlings”
e1“When a background of strong (> 620 μmol m −2 s −1 ) white light (WL) was supplemented with low irradiance UV‐B (∼ 3 μmol m −2 s −1 ). substantial (∼ 50%) inhibition of elongation occurred within 3 h of the light treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B elongation inhibition was similar in wild-type and au-mutant seedlings.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- wild type (WT) and au‐mutante0
- Outcome
- UV‐B‐induced elongation inhibitione0
- Direction
- similare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“The magnitude of UV‐B‐induced elongation inhibition was similar in wild type (WT) and au‐mutant seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Flavonoid accumulation was slower than UV-B inhibition of elongation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- WT and aue0
- Outcome
- induction of flavonoid accumulatione0
- Direction
- much slowere0
- Comparator
- effect of UV‐B on elongatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“In comparison to the effect of UV‐B on elongation, induction of flavonoid accumulation in WT and au seedlings undergoing de‐etiolation was a much slower response.”
Claim · model-written summary
Several UV-absorbing compounds were induced by light.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- lighte0
- Outcome
- UV‐absorbing compoundse0
- Direction
- inducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“Several UV‐absorbing compounds appeared to be specifically induced by light”
Claim · model-written summary
Some UV-absorbing compounds accumulated faster with white light plus UV-B than with white light alone.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- WL + UV‐B treatmente0
- Outcome
- accumulatede0
- Direction
- fastere0
- Comparator
- WL alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“some of them accumulated faster under the WL + UV‐B treatment than under WL alone.”
Claim · model-written summary
White light had little or no detectable effect on flavonoid levels through 3 hours.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- WLe0
- Outcome
- flavonoid levelse0
- Direction
- little or no delectable effecte0
- Qualifier
- up to 3 he0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“there was little or no delectable effect of WL on flavonoid levels until up to 3 h of treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
A specific UV-B effect on flavonoids became measurable only after 6 hours.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- specific UV‐B effecte0
- Qualifier
- only after 6 h of continuous treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“the specific UV‐B effect was measurable only after 6 h of continuous treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B screening in extracts differed between light treatments only after 9 or 24 hours.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- WL + UV‐B treatmentse0
- Outcome
- UV‐B‐screening properties of crude alcoholic extractse0
- Direction
- not differente0
- Qualifier
- until after 9 or 24 he0
- Comparator
- WLe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“UV‐B‐screening properties of crude alcoholic extracts were not different between WL and WL + UV‐B treatments until after 9 or 24 h.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B retarded emergence of seedlings breaking through soil.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- seedling emergencee0
- Direction
- retarde0
- Qualifier
- seedlings that were just breaking through the soil surfacee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“When the light treatments were applied to seedlings that were just breaking through the soil surface. UV‐B was found to consistently retard seedling emergence.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest rapid elongation inhibition may reduce sun exposure until protective pigmentation develops.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- minimize seedling exposure to sunlighte0
- Qualifier
- until protective pigmentation responses (triggered by WL and UV‐B) have taken place in the seedlings epidermise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato seedlings”
e0“the rapid inhibition of elongation in de‐etiolating seedlings is an evolved response lo UV‐B, which may serve to minimize seedling exposure to sunlight until protective pigmentation responses (triggered by WL and UV‐B) have taken place in the seedlings epidermis.”
The same questions in other papers
uv · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →light · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →light · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 155 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
222 papers more in this group
See all 226 papers →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.