Method / resourcemodel-written summary

UV-B damage was not visually evident 2 hours after irradiation, but it was detected by PAM and LIF fluorescence with equivalent success.

A claim from UV-B induced damage and recovery processes in apple leaves as assessed by LIF and PAM fluorescence techniques · 2012

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

UV-B damage was not visually evident 2 hours after irradiation, but it was detected by PAM and LIF fluorescence with equivalent success.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticae0
Outcome
UV-B damagee2
Qualifier
with equivalent successe2
Comparator
PAM and LIF fluorescence techniquese2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“greenhouse experiments with apple seedlings (Malus domestica Borkh.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 245–313
e2

“Although UV-B damage was not visually evident 2 hours after irradiation, it could be detected by PAM and LIF fluorescence techniques with equivalent success”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 616–772

Title

UV-B induced damage and recovery processes in apple leaves as assessed by LIF and PAM fluorescence techniques

Kuckenberg, J.; Tartachnyk, I.; Schmitz-Eiberger, M.; et al. Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (Julius Kühn-Institut) 2012. doi:10.5073/jabfq.2007.081.014

Other claims from this paper (19)

Record rev-8a69dc8becda7f4b0be2ec4b66509acd4002acb15b6ba525ee41ee8be9628900 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer