Abstract
Daily UV-supplementation during the plant fruiting stage of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) growing indoors may produce fruits with higher nutraceutical value and better acceptance by consumers. However, it is important to ensure that the plant’s performance during this stage is not compromised by the UV supplement. We studied the impact of UV-A (1 and 4 h) and UV-B (2 and 5 min) on the photosynthesis of greenhouse-grown tomato plants during the fruiting/ripening stage. After 30 d of daily irradiation, UV-B and UV-A differently interfered with the photosynthesis. UV-B induced few leaf-necrotic spots, and effects are more evidenced in the stimulation of photosynthetic/protective pigments, meaning a structural effect at the Light-Harvesting Complex. UV-A stimulated flowering/fruiting, paralleled with no visible leaf damages, and the impact on photosynthesis was mostly related to functional changes, in a dose-dependent manner. Both UV-A doses decreased the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), the effective efficiency of photosystem II (ΦPSII), and gas exchange processes, including net carbon assimilation (PN). Transcripts related to Photosystem II (PSII) and RuBisCO were highly stimulated by UV supplementation (mostly UV-A), but the maintenance of the RuBisCO protein levels indicates that some protein is also degraded. Our data suggest that plants supplemented with UV-A activate adaptative mechanisms (including increased transcription of PSII peptides and RuBisCO), and any negative impacts on photosynthesis do not compromise the final carbohydrate balances and plant yield, thus becoming a profitable tool to improve precision agriculture.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B induced a few necrotic leaf spots.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume1 - Treatment
- UV-Be0
- Outcome
- leaf-necrotic spotse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV-B induced few leaf-necrotic spots”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-B stimulated photosynthetic and protective pigments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- UV-Be0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic/protective pigmentse0
- Direction
- stimulatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV-B induced few leaf-necrotic spots, and effects are more evidenced in the stimulation of photosynthetic/protective pigments”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A stimulated flowering and fruiting.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- flowering/fruitinge0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV-A stimulated flowering/fruiting”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A caused no visible leaf damage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- no visible leaf damagese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“UV-A stimulated flowering/fruiting, paralleled with no visible leaf damages”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both UV-A doses decreased the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Both UV-A dosese0
- Outcome
- maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both UV-A doses decreased the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm)”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both UV-A doses decreased effective photosystem II efficiency.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Both UV-A dosese0
- Outcome
- effective efficiency of photosystem II (ΦPSII)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both UV-A doses decreased the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), the effective efficiency of photosystem II (ΦPSII)”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both UV-A doses decreased gas exchange including net carbon assimilation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Both UV-A dosese0
- Outcome
- gas exchange processes, including net carbon assimilation (PN)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both UV-A doses decreased the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), the effective efficiency of photosystem II (ΦPSII), and gas exchange processes, including net carbon assimilation (PN)”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV supplementation strongly stimulated transcripts related to PSII and RuBisCO, mostly with UV-A.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- UV supplementatione0
- Outcome
- Transcripts related to Photosystem II (PSII) and RuBisCOe0
- Direction
- highly stimulatede0
- Qualifier
- mostly UV-Ae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Transcripts related to Photosystem II (PSII) and RuBisCO were highly stimulated by UV supplementation (mostly UV-A)”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
RuBisCO protein levels were maintained under UV supplementation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume2
- Treatment
- UV supplementatione1
- Outcome
- RuBisCO protein levelse0
- Direction
- maintenancee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maintenance of the RuBisCO protein levels indicates that some protein is also degraded”
e1“UV supplementation”
e2“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors infer some RuBisCO protein degradation despite maintained protein levels.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Gene
- RuBisCOe0
- Outcome
- some protein is also degradede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maintenance of the RuBisCO protein levels indicates that some protein is also degraded”
e1“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A negative photosynthetic impacts did not compromise final carbohydrate balance or plant yield.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume2
- Treatment
- UV-Ae1
- Outcome
- final carbohydrate balances and plant yielde0
- Direction
- do not compromisee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“any negative impacts on photosynthesis do not compromise the final carbohydrate balances and plant yield”
e1“plants supplemented with UV-A”
e2“tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
uv · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →uv · phenology · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
uv · molecular: expression · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
uv · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
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.