Abstract
Few studies have investigated the interaction of ultraviolet (UV)‐B radiation and CO 2 concentration on plants. We studied the combined effects of UV‐B radiation and CO 2 concentration on canola ( Brassica napus cv. 46A65) under four growth conditions – ambient CO 2 with UV‐B (control), elevated CO 2 with UV‐B, ambient CO 2 without UV‐B, and elevated CO 2 without UV‐B – to determine whether the adverse effects of UV‐B are mitigated by elevated CO 2 . Elevated CO 2 significantly increased plant height and seed yield, whereas UV‐B decreased them. Elevated CO 2 ameliorated the adverse effects of UV‐B in plant height. UV‐B did not affect the physical characteristics of leaf but CO 2 did. Certain flower and fruit characteristics were affected negatively by UV‐B and positively by CO 2 . UV‐B did not affect net photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance but decreased water use efficiency (WUE). Elevated CO 2 significantly increased net photosynthesis and WUE. Neither UV‐B nor CO 2 affected chlorophyll (Chl) fluorescence. UV‐B significantly decreased Chl b and increased the ratio of Chl a / b . Elevated CO 2 decreased only the ratio of Chl a / b . UV‐B significantly increased UV‐absorbing compounds while CO 2 had no effect on them. Both UV‐B and CO 2 significantly increased epicuticular wax content. Many significant relationships were found between morphological, physiological, and chemical parameters. This study showed that elevated CO 2 can partially ameliorate some of the adverse effects of UV‐B radiation in B . napus .
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 significantly increased canola height and seed yield.
- Taxon
- canola
.jpg?width=60)
Brassica napus var. napust0 - Treatment
- Elevated CO 2e0
- Outcome
- plant height and seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Elevated CO 2 significantly increased plant height and seed yield”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B decreased canola height and seed yield.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- plant height and seed yielde1
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B decreased them”
e1“plant height and seed yield”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 ameliorated the adverse height effect of UV-B.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- Elevated CO 2e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- amelioratede0
- Comparator
- UV‐Be0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated CO 2 ameliorated the adverse effects of UV‐B in plant height”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B did not affect leaf physical characteristics.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- physical characteristics of leafe0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B did not affect the physical characteristics of leaf”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
CO2 affected leaf physical characteristics.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- CO 2e0
- Outcome
- physical characteristics of leafe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“physical characteristics of leaf but CO 2 did”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B negatively affected flower and fruit characteristics.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- flower and fruit characteristicse0
- Direction
- negativelye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Certain flower and fruit characteristics were affected negatively by UV‐B”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
CO2 positively affected flower and fruit characteristics.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- CO 2e0
- Outcome
- flower and fruit characteristicse0
- Direction
- positivelye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Certain flower and fruit characteristics were affected negatively by UV‐B and positively by CO 2”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B did not affect net photosynthesis, transpiration or stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- net photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B did not affect net photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B decreased water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B did not affect net photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance but decreased water use efficiency (WUE)”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 significantly increased net photosynthesis and water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- Elevated CO 2e0
- Outcome
- net photosynthesis and WUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated CO 2 significantly increased net photosynthesis and WUE”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither UV-B nor CO2 affected chlorophyll fluorescence.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐B nor CO 2e0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll (Chl) fluorescencee0
- Direction
- Neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither UV‐B nor CO 2 affected chlorophyll (Chl) fluorescence”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B significantly decreased Chl b.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- Chl be0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B significantly decreased Chl b”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B increased the Chl a/b ratio.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- ratio of Chl a / be0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B significantly decreased Chl b and increased the ratio of Chl a / b”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 decreased the Chl a/b ratio.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- Elevated CO 2e0
- Outcome
- ratio of Chl a / be0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Elevated CO 2 decreased only the ratio of Chl a / b”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B significantly increased UV-absorbing compounds.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- UV‐absorbing compoundse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐B significantly increased UV‐absorbing compounds”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
CO2 had no effect on UV-absorbing compounds.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- CO 2e0
- Outcome
- UV‐absorbing compoundse0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV‐absorbing compounds while CO 2 had no effect on them”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B significantly increased epicuticular wax content.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- UV‐Be0
- Outcome
- epicuticular wax contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both UV‐B and CO 2 significantly increased epicuticular wax content”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
CO2 significantly increased epicuticular wax content.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Treatment
- CO 2e0
- Outcome
- epicuticular wax contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both UV‐B and CO 2 significantly increased epicuticular wax content”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
Claim · model-written summary
Morphological, physiological and chemical parameters had significant relationships.
- Taxon
- canolaBrassica napus var. napust0
- Outcome
- significant relationshipse0
- Qualifier
- morphological, physiological, and chemical parameterse0
Not reportedSettingDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Many significant relationships were found between morphological, physiological, and chemical parameters”
t0“canola (Brassica napus)”
The same questions in other papers
uv · physiology: pigments · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →co2 · physiology: pigments · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
co2 · physiology: water · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
uv · molecular: metabolites · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
uv · physiology: water · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
co2 · molecular: metabolites · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →co2 · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →co2 · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.