Abstract
In olive (Olea europaea L.), hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate and the apparent leaf resistance to water vapour diffusion in leaves illuminated with white light (900 μmol m-2 s-1 photosynthetically active radiation) devoid of ultraviolet-B radiation. In addition, intact and dehaired leaves showed no significant differences in absorptance in the visible spectral region, while leaf temper- ature was independent of hair removal. These results indicate that leaf hairs of O. europaea may play only a marginal role in leaf energy balance and transpiration. When the white light was supplemented with ultraviolet-B radiation (5.89 W m-2), however, there was a considerable decrease in the photo- synthetic rate, and a simultaneous increase in leaf resistance to water vapour in dehaired leaves. Photochemical efficiency of photosystem II, evaluated from chlorophyll fluorescence emitted from the illuminated side, was reduced in all cases, but the reduction in dehaired, ultraviolet-B treated leaves was more pronounced and irreversible, indicating that the reduction of the photosynthetic rate may result from both stomatal limitation and electron flow inhibition. Photosynthetic capacity of dehaired leaves, measured at 5% CO2, however, was not influenced by ultraviolet-B radiation. We suggest, therefore, that ultraviolet-B radiation reduces photosynthetic rates by closing the stomata, while the observed reduction in photosystem II photochemical efficiency may concern only a superficial chloroplast population, contributing negligibly to whole leaf photosynthesis. Under the conditions of our experi- ments, the protective function of the indumentum against ultraviolet-B radiation predominates over the water conservation function.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate of olive leaves under white light without UV-B.
- Taxon
- Olea europaea
Olea europaeae1 - Treatment
- hair removale1
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee1
- Direction
- had no effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In olive (Olea europaea L.), hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate and the apparent leaf resistance to water vapour diffusion in leaves illuminated with white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Hair removal did not significantly change absorptance in the visible spectral region of olive leaves.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- hair removale1
- Outcome
- absorptance in the visible spectral regione2
- Direction
- no significant differencese2
- Comparator
- intacte2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“intact and dehaired leaves showed no significant differences in absorptance in the visible spectral region”
e1“In olive (Olea europaea L.), hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf temperature of olive leaves was independent of hair removal.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- hair removale3
- Outcome
- leaf temper- aturee3
- Direction
- independent ofe3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“leaf temper- ature was independent of hair removal”
e1“In olive (Olea europaea L.), hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B radiation decreased the photosynthetic rate of olive leaves compared with white light alone.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- ultraviolet-B radiatione4
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee1
- Direction
- decreasee4
- Comparator
- white lighte4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“When the white light was supplemented with ultraviolet-B radiation (5.89 W m-2), however, there was a considerable decrease in the photo- synthetic rate”
e1“In olive (Olea europaea L.), hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate and the apparent leaf resistance to water vapour diffusion in leaves illuminated with white light”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B radiation increased leaf resistance to water vapour in dehaired olive leaves.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- ultraviolet-B radiatione4
- Outcome
- leaf resistance to water vapoure5
- Direction
- increasee5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“and a simultaneous increase in leaf resistance to water vapour in dehaired leaves”
e4“When the white light was supplemented with ultraviolet-B radiation (5.89 W m-2), however, there was a considerable decrease in the photo- synthetic rate”
e1“In olive (Olea europaea L.), hair removal had no effect on the photosynthetic rate”
The same questions in other papers
radiation · physiology: photosynthesis · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
uv · physiology: photosynthesis · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
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.