Abstract
UV radiation plays an important role not only in plant growth and development but also in the accumulation of essential nutrients and health-promoting phytochemicals in plants. The main objective of this study was to examine the effects of supplemental UV-A, UV-B, and UV-AB on the nutritional quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cv. red leaf “New Red Fire” and green leaf “Two Star”) and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L., cv. BHN-589) grown in a greenhouse. Supplemental UV radiation was provided by UV lamps 5 - 6 days prior to harvest. Supplemental UV-A produced higher accumulation of total phenolic compounds and higher antioxidant capacity in red leaf lettuce compared to other treatments. Overall, supplemental UV-A produced a stronger response than other UV treatments and control in the accumulation of many phenolic compounds including luteolin-7-glucoside, quecetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucoside in red leaf lettuce. However, UV-B and UV-AB had a negative response in the accumulation of many phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucoside in both red and green leaf lettuce varieties. In tomato fruits, supplemental UV-A had no effect on their total phenolic concentration. However, supplemental UV-B radiation for 3 h or UV-AB radiation for 9 h exposure produced higher total phenolic concentration in the fruits compared to other supplemental UV treatments. Supplemental UV-AB (3 hexposure) was generally more effective than other UV treatments in increasing the accumulation of a number of phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, chicoric acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, and other flavonoids in ripe tomato fruits. Supplemental UV-A produced higher accumulation of carotenoids including lutein and β-carotene than other supplemental UV treatments, while supplemental UV-AB increased the accumulation of lycopene in fully ripe tomatoes. With regard to the essential nutrients, green leaf lettuce was more responsive to the supplemental UV treatments than red leaf lettuce. All the supplemental UV treatments produced an increase in protein concentration in the leaves of green leaf lettuce. However, supplemental UV-AB produced a stronger response compared to the control and other UV treatments in increasing the accumulation of many nutrients including protein, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and zinc in green leaf lettuce “Two Star”. Supplemental UV-treatments did not affect the accumulation of any essential nutrients in fully ripe tomato fruits. The results show that supplemental UV enhances the nutritional quality of lettuce in relation to both health-promoting phytochemicals and essential nutrients. Similarly, supplemental UV enhances nutritional quality in tomato fruits with higher accumulation of both phenolic compounds and carotenoids than does the control treatment.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A raised total phenolic accumulation and antioxidant capacity in red leaf lettuce relative to other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental UV-A produced higher accumulation of total phenolic compounds and higher antioxidant capacity in red leaf lettuce compared to other treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased several named phenolic compounds in red leaf lettuce relative to other UV treatments and control.
Verbatim
e0“supplemental UV-A produced a stronger response than other UV treatments and control in the accumulation of many phenolic compounds including luteolin-7-glucoside, quecetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucoside in red leaf lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B lowered accumulation of named phenolics in red and green leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- lettuce
Lactuca sativae0 - Treatment
- UV-Be0
- Outcome
- accumulation of many phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucosidee0
- Direction
- negative responsee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV-B and UV-AB had a negative response in the accumulation of many phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucoside in both red and green leaf lettuce varieties.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-AB lowered accumulation of named phenolics in red and green leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- UV-ABe0
- Outcome
- accumulation of many phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucosidee0
- Direction
- negative responsee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV-B and UV-AB had a negative response in the accumulation of many phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, and apigenin-3-glucoside in both red and green leaf lettuce varieties.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A did not change total phenolic concentration in tomato fruit.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- total phenolic concentratione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In tomato fruits, supplemental UV-A had no effect on their total phenolic concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
Three hours of UV-B raised tomato fruit total phenolics relative to other UV treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- supplemental UV-B radiation for 3 he0
- Outcome
- total phenolic concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other supplemental UV treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“supplemental UV-B radiation for 3 h or UV-AB radiation for 9 h exposure produced higher total phenolic concentration in the fruits compared to other supplemental UV treatments.”
e1“In tomato fruits, supplemental UV-A had no effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Nine hours of UV-AB raised tomato fruit total phenolics relative to other UV treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- UV-AB radiation for 9 h exposuree0
- Outcome
- total phenolic concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other supplemental UV treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“supplemental UV-B radiation for 3 h or UV-AB radiation for 9 h exposure produced higher total phenolic concentration in the fruits compared to other supplemental UV treatments.”
e1“In tomato fruits, supplemental UV-A had no effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Three hours of UV-AB raised multiple phenolics in ripe tomato fruit relative to other UV treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Supplemental UV-AB (3 hexposure)e0
- Outcome
- accumulation of a number of phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, chicoric acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, and other flavonoidse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- other UV treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental UV-AB (3 hexposure) was generally more effective than other UV treatments in increasing the accumulation of a number of phenolic compounds including chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, chicoric acid, luteolin-7-glucoside, and other flavonoids in ripe tomato fruits.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased lutein and β-carotene accumulation relative to other UV treatments in tomatoes.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- accumulation of carotenoids including lutein and β-carotenee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other supplemental UV treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental UV-A produced higher accumulation of carotenoids including lutein and β-carotene than other supplemental UV treatments”
e1“In tomato fruits, supplemental UV-A had no effect”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-AB increased lycopene accumulation in fully ripe tomatoes.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- supplemental UV-ABe0
- Outcome
- accumulation of lycopenee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“supplemental UV-AB increased the accumulation of lycopene in fully ripe tomatoes.”
Claim · model-written summary
Green leaf lettuce was more responsive than red leaf lettuce to supplemental UV for essential nutrients.
Verbatim
e0“green leaf lettuce was more responsive to the supplemental UV treatments than red leaf lettuce.”
Claim · model-written summary
All supplemental UV treatments increased protein concentration in green leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- green leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- All the supplemental UV treatmentse0
- Outcome
- protein concentratione0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“All the supplemental UV treatments produced an increase in protein concentration in the leaves of green leaf lettuce.”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-AB raised protein, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur and zinc in green leaf lettuce Two Star more than other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“supplemental UV-AB produced a stronger response compared to the control and other UV treatments in increasing the accumulation of many nutrients including protein, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and zinc in green leaf lettuce “Two Star”.”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV treatments did not affect essential nutrients in fully ripe tomato fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Supplemental UV-treatmentse0
- Outcome
- accumulation of any essential nutrientse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental UV-treatments did not affect the accumulation of any essential nutrients in fully ripe tomato fruits.”
The same questions in other papers
uv · physiology: pigments · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →radiation · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →uv · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →uv · quality: phytochemicals · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →uv · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- 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.