Abstract
Summary An open‐air experiment was performed in Pistoia (Italy) to investigate the possible protective role played by different contents of UV‐B absorbing compounds to realistic UV‐B supplementation and to study its effect on plant fruit production. A mutant line and its normal counterpart of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill, which differ in the content of UV‐B absorbing compounds, were used. Additional UV‐B radiation in the field was supplied to simulate a 20% stratospheric ozone depletion. Two groups of plants were grown: ‘control’, where plants received only natural solar UV‐B radiation, and ‘UV‐B’ treatment, where plants were grown under supplemental UV‐B. The results of the experiment showed that the content of UV‐B absorbing compounds of treated plants did not differ from that of the control in both lines. This indicates that natural sunlight, in Mediterranean areas, is saturating for synthesis of these compounds also in plants with normal content of UV‐B absorbing compounds. Consequently, plants are not able to produce significant additional amounts of them, in response to a realistic UV‐B supplementation, in order to protect the plant from additional UV‐B radiation. No different responses to the UV‐B supplementation were found between the two lines. The most significant UV‐B effect was an earlier reddening of fruits in comparison with the ‘control’ accompanied by a reduction in the size of mature fruits. No significant effects of UV‐B treatment were observed in biomass accumulation, leaf ontogeny, flowering or productivity.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B supplementation did not change UV-B absorbing compound content in either tomato line.
- Taxon
- Lycopersicon esculentum Mill
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- content of UV‐B absorbing compoundse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Qualifier
- both linese0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the content of UV‐B absorbing compounds of treated plants did not differ from that of the control in both lines”
t0“Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.”
Claim · model-written summary
The two tomato lines did not differ in response to UV-B supplementation.
- Taxon
- Lycopersicon esculentum MillSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- responses to the UV‐B supplementatione0
- Direction
- No differente0
- Comparator
- the two linese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No different responses to the UV‐B supplementation were found between the two lines”
t0“Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV-B caused earlier fruit reddening than control exposure.
- Taxon
- Lycopersicon esculentum MillSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- reddening of fruitse0
- Direction
- earliere0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most significant UV‐B effect was an earlier reddening of fruits in comparison with the ‘control’”
t0“Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV-B reduced mature fruit size.
- Taxon
- Lycopersicon esculentum MillSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- size of mature fruitse0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most significant UV‐B effect was an earlier reddening of fruits in comparison with the ‘control’ accompanied by a reduction in the size of mature fruits”
t0“Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B treatment had no significant effect on biomass accumulation, leaf ontogeny, flowering or productivity.
- Taxon
- Lycopersicon esculentum MillSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- UV‐B treatmente0
- Outcome
- biomass accumulation, leaf ontogeny, flowering or productivitye0
- Direction
- No significant effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant effects of UV‐B treatment were observed in biomass accumulation, leaf ontogeny, flowering or productivity”
t0“Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.”
The same questions in other papers
uv · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →uv · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →uv · molecular: metabolites · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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.