Abstract
Sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris L.) plants injected with Cercospora beticota Sace. as well as non‐infected plants were grown under visible light with or without ultraviolet‐B (UV‐B, 280–320 nm) radiation for 40 days. An interaction between UV‐B radiation and Cercospora leaf spot disease was observed, resulting in a large reduction in leaf chlorophyll content, dry weight of leaf laminae, petioles and storage roots. Lipid peraxidation in leaves also increased the most under the combined treatments. This was also true for ultraweak luminescence from both adaxial and abaxial leaf surfaces. However, no correlation between lipid peroxidation and ultraweak luminescence was observed. Ultraviolet‐B radiation given alone appeared to have either a stimulating effect, giving an increase in dry weight of laminae and reducing lipid peroxidation, or no effect. This lack of effect was seen in the absence of change in dry weight of storage roots and chlorophyll content relative to controls. The :study demonstrated a harmful interaction between UV‐B radiation and Cercospom leaf spot disease on sugar beet.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Combined UV-B and disease reduced sugar beet chlorophyll content and organ dry weight.
- Taxon
- Sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- UV‐B radiation and Cercospora leaf spot diseasee0
- Interactor
- Cercospora
Cercosporae0pathogen - Outcome
- leaf chlorophyll content, dry weight of leaf laminae, petioles and storage rootse0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An interaction between UV‐B radiation and Cercospora leaf spot disease was observed, resulting in a large reduction in leaf chlorophyll content, dry weight of leaf laminae, petioles and storage roots”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined UV-B and leaf spot increased leaf lipid peroxidation most.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- combined treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Lipid peraxidation in leavese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lipid peraxidation in leaves also increased the most under the combined treatments”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatments also maximized leaf surface ultraweak luminescence.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- combined treatmentse1
- Outcome
- ultraweak luminescence from both adaxial and abaxial leaf surfacese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This was also true for ultraweak luminescence from both adaxial and abaxial leaf surfaces”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“Lipid peraxidation in leaves also increased the most under the combined treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Lipid peroxidation and ultraweak luminescence were not correlated.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Compound
- lipid peroxidatione0
- Outcome
- ultraweak luminescencee0
- Direction
- no correlatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no correlation between lipid peroxidation and ultraweak luminescence was observed”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B alone increased leaf lamina dry weight.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Ultraviolet‐B radiation given alonee0
- Outcome
- dry weight of laminaee0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ultraviolet‐B radiation given alone appeared to have either a stimulating effect, giving an increase in dry weight of laminae”
t0“Sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B alone reduced lipid peroxidation.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Ultraviolet‐Be1
- Outcome
- lipid peroxidatione0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing lipid peroxidation”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“Ultraviolet‐B radiation given alone appeared to have either a stimulating effect, giving an increase in dry weight of laminae”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B alone did not change storage root dry weight or chlorophyll relative to controls.
- Taxon
- Sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Ultraviolet‐Be1
- Outcome
- dry weight of storage roots and chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- absence of changee0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“absence of change in dry weight of storage roots and chlorophyll content relative to controls”
t0“Sugar beet”
e1“Ultraviolet‐B radiation given alone appeared to have either a stimulating effect, giving an increase in dry weight of laminae”
The same questions in other papers
Cercospora · physiology: pigments · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
uv · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →uv · physiology: oxidative · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
uv · physiology: pigments · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
radiation · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.