Paper · 2007 · Annals of Applied Biology

Climate‐ameliorating measures influence photosynthetic gas exchange of apple leaves

J. Gindaba; S.J.E. Wand

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
24
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Sunburn has become one of the major threats to apple fruit production in South Africa and other countries with Mediterranean climate. Some climate‐ameliorating measures have been developed to control sunburn in apples. Effects of the climate‐ameliorating measures, viz. evaporative cooling, Surround ® WP and shade net, on leaf gas exchange of a 5‐year‐old orchard of ‘Cripps’ Pink’ apple were investigated during hot summer days in Stellenbosch, South Africa. Evaporative cooling increased net photosynthetic rate ( A ) and stomatal conductance ( g s ) because of its lowering of leaf temperature and leaf‐to‐air vapour pressure difference (VPD). Shade net also reduced leaf temperature because of reduction in photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). Quantum efficiency of photosynthesis was increased under shade net to compensate for reduced PPFD. Shade net also reduced transpiration rate more than A , resulting in increased midday water‐use efficiency. The diurnal trends of A and g s in the Surround WP and control treatments were similar, indicating limited ameliorative impact of Surround WP. Furthermore, Surround WP typically reduced maximum rate of carboxylation and the light‐saturated rate of electron transport. In all treatments, A decreased by 70% when leaf temperature increased from 35°C to 40°C. In conclusion, all treatments affected leaf photosynthetic gas exchange. Evaporative cooling enhanced leaf A and g s because of distinct ameliorative effects on leaf temperature and VPD. Shade net reduced leaf temperature with no consistent effects on leaf gas exchange attributes. Surround WP had limited or no impact on leaf temperature and negatively affected leaf gas exchange attributes.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Evaporative cooling increased photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.

Organ / stage
leafe0
Treatment
Evaporative coolinge0
Outcome
net photosynthetic rate ( A ) and stomatal conductance ( g s )e0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Evaporative cooling increased net photosynthetic rate ( A ) and stomatal conductance ( g s ) because of its lowering of leaf temperature and leaf‐to‐air vapour pressure difference (VPD).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–656 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Evaporative cooling lowered leaf temperature and leaf-to-air vapor pressure difference.

Treatment
Evaporative coolinge0
Outcome
leaf temperature and leaf‐to‐air vapour pressure difference (VPD)e0
Direction
loweringe0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Evaporative cooling increased net photosynthetic rate ( A ) and stomatal conductance ( g s ) because of its lowering of leaf temperature and leaf‐to‐air vapour pressure difference (VPD).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–656 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade net reduced leaf temperature through reduced photon flux density.

Treatment
Shade nete0
Outcome
leaf temperaturee0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Shade net also reduced leaf temperature because of reduction in photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 657–763 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade net increased quantum efficiency of photosynthesis.

Treatment
shade nete0
Outcome
Quantum efficiency of photosynthesise0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Quantum efficiency of photosynthesis was increased under shade net to compensate for reduced PPFD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 764–862 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade net reduced transpiration more than photosynthesis and increased midday water-use efficiency.

Treatment
Shade nete0
Outcome
transpiration ratee0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Shade net also reduced transpiration rate more than A , resulting in increased midday water‐use efficiency.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 863–970 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade net increased midday water-use efficiency.

Treatment
Shade nete0
Outcome
midday water‐use efficiencye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Shade net also reduced transpiration rate more than A , resulting in increased midday water‐use efficiency.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 863–970 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surround WP and control had similar diurnal photosynthesis and conductance trends.

Treatment
Surround WPe0
Outcome
diurnal trends of A and g se0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
controle0

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“The diurnal trends of A and g s in the Surround WP and control treatments were similar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 971–1057 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surround WP reduced maximum carboxylation and light-saturated electron transport rates.

Treatment
Surround WPe0
Outcome
maximum rate of carboxylation and the light‐saturated rate of electron transporte0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“Surround WP typically reduced maximum rate of carboxylation and the light‐saturated rate of electron transport.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1127–1238 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Photosynthetic rate declined 70% as leaf temperature rose from 35°C to 40°C.

Organ / stage
leafe0
Outcome
Ae0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
70%e0
Qualifier
leaf temperature increased from 35°C to 40°Ce0

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

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

Verbatim

t0

“apple leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–83 · show in text ↑
e0

“A decreased by 70% when leaf temperature increased from 35°C to 40°C.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1258–1327 · show in text ↑

processing · physiology: photosynthesis · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

shade · physiology: gas exchange · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

trap barrier · soil: physics · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

trap barrier · physiology: gas exchange · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

shade · physiology: photosynthesis · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 4 positive, 3 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

trap barrier · physiology: photosynthesis · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

trap barrier · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

processing · soil: physics · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.