Abstract
Lettuce is one of the most suitable plant species to grow indoor or in a Plant Factory with Artificial lighting (PFAL) system, due to its short height and the relatively low light saturation point. Red lettuces are highly cultivated in PFALs, highly appreciated for its unique pigmentation and antioxidant activity, especially, the anthocyanin content that gives it the red color. However, red lettuces cultivated with PFAL in controlled environments face the challenge of having low anthocyanin content due of the lack of ultraviolet (UV) light that is necessary for its production. In this study, two red-lettuce cultivars ‘Annapolis’ and ‘Salanova’ were grown in a plant factory with LEDs (light-emitting diode) and UV light treatments to compare their growth trajectory and nutritional characteristics. Other characteristics such as Fresh Weight (FW) and total leaf area were measured to evaluate the influence of UV light in the lettuce growth. The nutritional quality of lettuces was assessed by measuring anthocyanins and polyphenols contents using a microplate reader and their ascorbic acid content measured via a reflectometer. Fresh Weight (FW), leaf area and leaf thickness under the conditions of this study, showed no effect (p>0.05) on the plants growth with the incorporation of UV radiation. However, the incorporation of UV light increased the functional components in ‘Annapolis’ and ‘Salanova’ lettuces. The polyphenol and anthocyanins contents in both lettuce cultivars showed significant differences (p<0.05). For ascorbic acid content, a significant difference was found only for ‘Annapolis’ lettuce. The incorporation of UV light can increase the functional ingredients such as polyphenols and anthocyanins without growth suppression for ‘Salanova’ cultivar. UV light increased polyphenol and anthocyanins contents in both cultivars, making them suitable cultivars for PFAL under the growth conditions used in this experiment. These results taken together can be used to improve the accumulation of functional ingredients in red lettuces without growth suppression incorporating UV light and that could be suitable for production in PFALs.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
UV radiation incorporation had no effect on fresh weight, leaf area or leaf thickness of red lettuce.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativa L.
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- incorporation of UV radiatione1
- Outcome
- Fresh Weight (FW), leaf area and leaf thicknesse1
- Direction
- no effecte1
- Value
- p>0.05e1
- Qualifier
- under the conditions of this studye1
- Setting
- Mini Plant Factoryt1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fresh Weight (FW), leaf area and leaf thickness under the conditions of this study, showed no effect (p>0.05) on the plants growth with the incorporation of UV radiation”
t0“Two Red Lettuces (Lactuca sativa L.)”
t1“Cultivated Under UV Light in a Mini Plant Factory”
Claim · model-written summary
UV light increased polyphenol and anthocyanin contents in both red lettuce cultivars, with significant differences.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativa L.Lactuca sativat0
- Material
- ‘Annapolis’ and ‘Salanova’e4
- Treatment
- UV lighte2
- Outcome
- polyphenol and anthocyanins contentse2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- p<0.05e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“UV light increased polyphenol and anthocyanins contents in both cultivars”
e3“The polyphenol and anthocyanins contents in both lettuce cultivars showed significant differences (p<0.05)”
e4“the incorporation of UV light increased the functional components in ‘Annapolis’ and ‘Salanova’ lettuces”
t0“Two Red Lettuces (Lactuca sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV light had a significant effect on ascorbic acid content only in the Annapolis lettuce.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativa L.Lactuca sativat0
- Material
- ‘Annapolis’e5
- Treatment
- UV lighte4
- Outcome
- ascorbic acid contente5
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“the incorporation of UV light increased the functional components in ‘Annapolis’ and ‘Salanova’ lettuces”
e5“For ascorbic acid content, a significant difference was found only for ‘Annapolis’ lettuce”
t0“Two Red Lettuces (Lactuca sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both red lettuce cultivars are suitable for PFAL production under the growth conditions used.
- Taxon
- Lactuca sativa L.Lactuca sativat0
- Outcome
- suitable cultivars for PFALe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“making them suitable cultivars for PFAL under the growth conditions used in this experiment”
t0“Two Red Lettuces (Lactuca sativa L.)”
The same questions in other papers
uv · quality: phytochemicals · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →uv · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →radiation · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →light · quality: phytochemicals · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 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.