Abstract
Abstract Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined at the transient stage at the end of winter, when both photoperiod and irradiance gradually increase. Additionally, CO 2 fluxes were calculated for a greenhouse without supplementary lighting and without CO 2 enrichment based on CO 2 sinks (plant photosynthesis) and CO 2 sources (plant and substrate respiration). In January, tomato leaves in the greenhouse showed low photosynthesis with a maximum assimilation of 6–8 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 , a quantum yield of 0.06 μmol CO 2 μmol −1 photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) and a low light compensation point of 26 μmol PAR m −2 s −1 , a combination which classifies them as shade leaves. In February, tomato leaves increased their light compensation point to 39 μmol PAR m −2 s −1 and quantum yield to 0.08, the former indicating the adaptation to increased irradiance and photoperiod. These tomato leaves increased their transpiration from 0.4 to 0.9 in January to ∼2 mmol H 2 O m −2 s −1 in February. Both photosynthesis and transpiration were primarily limited by light but neither by stomatal conductivity nor by CO 2 . In January, light response of photosynthesis, dark respiration and transpiration were negligibly affected by increasing CO 2 concentrations from 600 to 900 ppm CO 2 under low light conditions, indicating no benefit of CO 2 enrichment unless light intensity increased. In February, tomato leaves were photoinhibited at inherent greenhouse CO 2 concentrations on the first sunny day; this photoinhibition was further enhanced by an increased CO 2 concentration of 1000 ppm. CO 2 fluxes in the greenhouse appeared strongly dependent on solar radiation. After exceeding the light compensation point in the morning, greenhouse CO 2 concentrations decreased by 58 or by 110 ppm CO 2 h −1 on a sunny day in January or February and by 23 ppm on overcast days in both months. Calculated per overall tomato canopy, plant photosynthesis contributed 42–50% to the morning CO 2 depletion in the greenhouse. Dark respiration of tomato leaves was ∼2 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 in January and ∼3 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 in February. This dark respiration resulted in rises of 15 and 17 ppm CO 2 h −1 at night in the greenhouse compartment and was identified as primary source of CO 2 . Respiration of the substrate used to grow the plants, which produced 7.3 ppm CO 2 h −1 , was identified as secondary source of CO 2 . The combined plant and substrate respiration resulted in peaks of up to 900 ppm CO 2 in the greenhouse before dawn.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
In January, tomato leaves in the greenhouse had a maximum assimilation of 6–8 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume1 - Organ / stage
- leavese1
- Outcome
- maximum assimilatione1
- Value
- 6–8 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1e1
- Qualifier
- In Januarye1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In January, tomato leaves in the greenhouse showed low photosynthesis with a maximum assimilation of 6–8 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1”
Claim · model-written summary
In January, tomato leaves had a quantum yield of 0.06 μmol CO 2 μmol −1 photosynthetic active radiation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Outcome
- quantum yielde2
- Value
- 0.06 μmol CO 2 μmol −1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In January, tomato leaves in the greenhouse showed low photosynthesis with a maximum assimilation of 6–8 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1”
e2“a quantum yield of 0.06 μmol CO 2 μmol −1 photosynthetic active radiation (PAR)”
Claim · model-written summary
In January, tomato leaves had a low light compensation point of 26 μmol PAR m −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Outcome
- light compensation pointe3
- Value
- 26 μmol PAR m −2 s −1e3
- Qualifier
- lowe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In January, tomato leaves in the greenhouse showed low photosynthesis with a maximum assimilation of 6–8 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1”
e3“a low light compensation point of 26 μmol PAR m −2 s −1”
Claim · model-written summary
In February, tomato leaves increased their light compensation point to 39 μmol PAR m −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume4
- Organ / stage
- leavese4
- Outcome
- light compensation pointe4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 39 μmol PAR m −2 s −1e4
- Qualifier
- In Februarye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“In February, tomato leaves increased their light compensation point to 39 μmol PAR m −2 s −1 and quantum yield to 0.08”
Claim · model-written summary
In February, tomato leaves increased their quantum yield to 0.08.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume4
- Outcome
- quantum yielde4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 0.08e4
- Qualifier
- In Februarye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“In February, tomato leaves increased their light compensation point to 39 μmol PAR m −2 s −1 and quantum yield to 0.08”
Claim · model-written summary
Tomato leaves increased transpiration to about 2 mmol H2O m−2 s−1 in February, from 0.4 to 0.9 in January.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume5
- Outcome
- transpiratione5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- ∼2 mmol H 2 O m −2 s −1e5
- Qualifier
- from 0.4 to 0.9 in Januarye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“These tomato leaves increased their transpiration from 0.4 to 0.9 in January to ∼2 mmol H 2 O m −2 s −1 in February”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthesis and transpiration of tomato were primarily limited by light, not by stomatal conductance or CO2.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis and transpiratione6
- Qualifier
- primarily limited by lighte6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e6“Both photosynthesis and transpiration were primarily limited by light but neither by stomatal conductivity nor by CO 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing CO2 from 600 to 900 ppm in January negligibly affected light response of photosynthesis, dark respiration and transpiration under low light.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- increasing CO 2 concentrations from 600 to 900 ppme7
- Outcome
- light response of photosynthesis, dark respiration and transpiratione7
- Direction
- negligibly affectede7
- Qualifier
- under low light conditionse7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e7“In January, light response of photosynthesis, dark respiration and transpiration were negligibly affected by increasing CO 2 concentrations from 600 to 900 ppm CO 2 under low light conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
In February, tomato leaves were photoinhibited at inherent greenhouse CO2 concentrations on the first sunny day.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Organ / stage
- leavese1
- Outcome
- photoinhibitede1
- Qualifier
- at inherent greenhouse CO 2 concentrations on the first sunny daye1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In February, tomato leaves were photoinhibited at inherent greenhouse CO 2 concentrations on the first sunny day”
Claim · model-written summary
An increased CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm further enhanced photoinhibition of tomato leaves in February.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- an increased CO 2 concentration of 1000 ppme2
- Outcome
- photoinhibitione2
- Direction
- further enhancede2
- Comparator
- inherent greenhouse CO 2 concentrationse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“In February, tomato leaves were photoinhibited at inherent greenhouse CO 2 concentrations on the first sunny day”
e2“this photoinhibition was further enhanced by an increased CO 2 concentration of 1000 ppm”
Claim · model-written summary
CO2 fluxes in the greenhouse appeared strongly dependent on solar radiation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- solar radiatione1
- Outcome
- CO 2 fluxese1
- Qualifier
- appeared strongly dependente1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“CO 2 fluxes in the greenhouse appeared strongly dependent on solar radiation”
Claim · model-written summary
Greenhouse CO2 concentrations decreased by 58 or by 110 ppm CO2 per hour on sunny days in January or February.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- greenhouse CO 2 concentrationse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 58 or by 110 ppm CO 2 h −1e1
- Qualifier
- on a sunny day in January or Februarye1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“After exceeding the light compensation point in the morning, greenhouse CO 2 concentrations decreased by 58 or by 110 ppm CO 2 h −1 on a sunny day in January or February and by 23 ppm on overcast days in both months”
Claim · model-written summary
Greenhouse CO2 concentrations decreased by 23 ppm per hour on overcast days in both months.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- greenhouse CO 2 concentrationse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 23 ppme1
- Qualifier
- on overcast days in both monthse1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“After exceeding the light compensation point in the morning, greenhouse CO 2 concentrations decreased by 58 or by 110 ppm CO 2 h −1 on a sunny day in January or February and by 23 ppm on overcast days in both months”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant photosynthesis contributed 42–50% to the morning CO2 depletion in the greenhouse.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Outcome
- morning CO 2 depletione1
- Value
- 42–50%e1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“Calculated per overall tomato canopy, plant photosynthesis contributed 42–50% to the morning CO 2 depletion in the greenhouse”
Claim · model-written summary
Dark respiration of tomato leaves was about 2 μmol CO2 m−2 s−1 in January.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Organ / stage
- leavese1
- Outcome
- Dark respiratione1
- Value
- ∼2 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1e1
- Qualifier
- in Januarye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Dark respiration of tomato leaves was ∼2 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 in January and ∼3 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 in February”
Claim · model-written summary
Dark respiration of tomato leaves was about 3 μmol CO2 m−2 s−1 in February.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Organ / stage
- leavese1
- Outcome
- Dark respiratione1
- Value
- ∼3 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1e1
- Qualifier
- in Februarye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Dark respiration of tomato leaves was ∼2 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 in January and ∼3 μmol CO 2 m −2 s −1 in February”
Claim · model-written summary
Dark respiration of tomato leaves caused rises of 15 and 17 ppm CO2 per hour at night and was the primary CO2 source.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- risese1
- Value
- 15 and 17 ppm CO 2 h −1e1
- Qualifier
- primary source of CO 2e1
- Setting
- greenhouse compartmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“This dark respiration resulted in rises of 15 and 17 ppm CO 2 h −1 at night in the greenhouse compartment and was identified as primary source of CO 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Respiration of the substrate used to grow tomato plants produced 7.3 ppm CO2 per hour and was a secondary CO2 source.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- Respiration of the substratee1
- Value
- 7.3 ppm CO 2 h −1e1
- Qualifier
- secondary source of CO 2e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“Respiration of the substrate used to grow the plants, which produced 7.3 ppm CO 2 h −1, was identified as secondary source of CO 2”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined plant and substrate respiration produced CO2 peaks of up to 900 ppm in the greenhouse before dawn.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- peakse1
- Value
- up to 900 ppm CO 2e1
- Qualifier
- before dawne1
- Setting
- greenhousee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Responses of tomato leaves in a greenhouse to light and CO 2 were examined”
e1“The combined plant and substrate respiration resulted in peaks of up to 900 ppm CO 2 in the greenhouse before dawn”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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.