Abstract
Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections. The two sections were set as (1) section irradiated only by fluorescent lamps (main wavelengths 433, 543, and 610 nm; 230 μmol·m−2·s−1 of photosynthetic photon flux density) and non-treated with UV-A irradiation (hereafter, non-UVA), and (2) section irradiated with fluorescent lamps and treated with UV-A irradiation (maximum peak emission: 352 nm; 15.1 W·m−2 ultraviolet radiation intensity; hereafter, t-UVA). The fruit weight per plant and the number of fruits per plant were not significantly affected by cultivar or section. Regarding fruit quality, the fruit cracking rate was lower in the t-UVA than in non-UVA section. There were no anatomical or histochemical differences in fruit structure or distribution of pigments such as lycopene or β-carotene, but the shape of the pigment in the epidermal cells was needle-shaped in the non-UVA and unclearly-shaped in the t-UVA, so the pigment shape was different between the two sections. In addition, the number of layers of the hypodermis in the exocarp that accumulated the pigment was smaller in the t-UVA than in non-UVA section. Fruit components in t-UVA showed increased total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), and ascorbic acid content, but a decreased carotenoid content. Therefore, it was shown that UV-A irradiation had a positive effect on the TSS, TA and ascorbic acid content and had a negative effect on the size of the fruit per fruit and the carotenoid content. UV irradiation did not affect the yield per plant. Comparing ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’, there was no significant difference in yield, but the fruit size of ‘Red Robin’ was larger, while and the fruit component of ‘Tiny Tim Red’ was higher than that of ‘Red Robin’. In conclusion, when cultivating tomato plants in a plant factory, further improvements in fruit size and composition are expected by appropriately adjusting the time and intensity of UV irradiation for each cultivar.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A did not significantly change fruit weight or fruit number per plant.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0 - Treatment
- UV-A irradiatione1
- Outcome
- fruit weight per plant and the number of fruits per plante3
- Direction
- not significantly affectede3
- Comparator
- non-UVAe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“section irradiated with fluorescent lamps and treated with UV-A irradiation”
e2“non-treated with UV-A irradiation (hereafter, non-UVA)”
e3“The fruit weight per plant and the number of fruits per plant were not significantly affected by cultivar or section”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit cracking rate was lower under t-UVA than non-UVA.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- t-UVAe4
- Outcome
- fruit cracking ratee4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Comparator
- non-UVAe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e4“the fruit cracking rate was lower in the t-UVA than in non-UVA section”
Claim · model-written summary
No anatomical or histochemical differences in fruit structure or pigment distribution were found.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Outcome
- fruit structure or distribution of pigments such as lycopene or β-carotenee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e5“There were no anatomical or histochemical differences in fruit structure or distribution of pigments such as lycopene or β-carotene”
Claim · model-written summary
Pigment shape in epidermal cells differed between t-UVA and non-UVA fruit.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- t-UVAe6
- Outcome
- shape of the pigment in the epidermal cellse6
- Direction
- differente6
- Comparator
- non-UVAe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e6“the shape of the pigment in the epidermal cells was needle-shaped in the non-UVA and unclearly-shaped in the t-UVA, so the pigment shape was different between the two sections”
Claim · model-written summary
The hypodermis in the exocarp had fewer pigment-accumulating layers under t-UVA than non-UVA.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Organ / stage
- hypodermis in the exocarpe7
- Treatment
- t-UVAe7
- Outcome
- number of layers of the hypodermis in the exocarpe7
- Direction
- smallere7
- Comparator
- non-UVAe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e7“the number of layers of the hypodermis in the exocarp that accumulated the pigment was smaller in the t-UVA than in non-UVA section”
Claim · model-written summary
Under t-UVA, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and ascorbic acid content increased.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- t-UVAe1
- Outcome
- total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), and ascorbic acid contente1
- Direction
- increasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“Fruit components in t-UVA showed increased total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), and ascorbic acid content, but a decreased carotenoid content”
Claim · model-written summary
Under t-UVA, carotenoid content decreased.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- t-UVAe1
- Outcome
- carotenoid contente1
- Direction
- decreasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“Fruit components in t-UVA showed increased total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), and ascorbic acid content, but a decreased carotenoid content”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A had a negative effect on fruit size.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- UV-A irradiatione1
- Outcome
- the size of the fruit per fruite1
- Direction
- negative effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“UV-A irradiation had a positive effect on the TSS, TA and ascorbic acid content and had a negative effect on the size of the fruit per fruit and the carotenoid content”
Claim · model-written summary
UV irradiation did not affect yield per plant.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- UV irradiatione1
- Outcome
- yield per plante1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“UV irradiation did not affect the yield per plant”
Claim · model-written summary
The two cultivars did not differ significantly in yield.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Material
- ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’e1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- no significant differencee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“Comparing ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’, there was no significant difference in yield, but the fruit size of ‘Red Robin’ was larger, while and the fruit component of ‘Tiny Tim Red’ was higher than that of ‘Red Robin’”
Claim · model-written summary
Red Robin had larger fruit size than Tiny Tim Red.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Material
- Red Robine1
- Outcome
- fruit sizee1
- Direction
- largere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“Comparing ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’, there was no significant difference in yield, but the fruit size of ‘Red Robin’ was larger, while and the fruit component of ‘Tiny Tim Red’ was higher than that of ‘Red Robin’”
Claim · model-written summary
Tiny Tim Red had higher fruit component values than Red Robin.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Material
- Tiny Tim Rede1
- Outcome
- fruit componente1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- Red Robine1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf cherry tomatoes ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’ were cultivated in two sections”
e1“Comparing ‘Red Robin’ and ‘Tiny Tim Red’, there was no significant difference in yield, but the fruit size of ‘Red Robin’ was larger, while and the fruit component of ‘Tiny Tim Red’ was higher than that of ‘Red Robin’”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit size and composition may be improved by adjusting the time and intensity of UV irradiation for each cultivar.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- time and intensity of UV irradiatione0
- Outcome
- fruit size and compositione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when cultivating tomato plants in a plant factory, further improvements in fruit size and composition are expected by appropriately adjusting the time and intensity of UV irradiation for each cultivar”
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 →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.