Abstract
Light plays an important role in influencing the nutritional quality of food crops, especially with regard to the health-promoting phytochemicals. However, its role in affecting the nutritional quality with regard to the essential nutrients is not well understood. In this study, the effects of preharvest UV-A treatment on the nutritional quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa, cv. red-leaf ‘New Red Fire’ and green-leaf ‘Two Star’) in relation to the essential nutrients and health-promoting phytochemicals were explored. Lettuce plants were grown in a growth chamber and were subjected to supplemental UV-A LEDs (peak wavelength 375 nm) for a brief period (3–6 days) prior to harvest. UV-A LEDs were equipped with lenses to control the light dispersion. Many growth indices such as shoot fresh mass, leaf area, and leaf number were unaffected by supplemental UV-A in both varieties while shoot dry mass decreased in response to a 6-day UV-A treatment compared to the control. Leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations increased significantly in green-leaf lettuce after 3 or 6 days of UV-A treatment, but only after 3 days of UV-A treatment in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control. Leaf protein concentration increased significantly in both lettuce varieties along with a number of essential nutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, calcium, manganese, and sulfur in response to supplemental UV-A. Supplemental UV-A increased the accumulation of protein by approximately 48% in green-leaf lettuce and 31% in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control plants. Moreover, in addition to the above essential nutrients, green-leaf lettuce accumulated higher amounts of magnesium, copper, and zinc compared to the control plants, indicating that green-leaf lettuce was more responsive to preharvest supplemental UV-A treatment than red-leaf lettuce. However, the accumulation of total phenolic compounds and flavonoids in both varieties was lower under supplemental UV-A. Furthermore, the use of LED lenses did not have a consistent impact on most of the plant responses studied. Overall, the results indicate that a brief preharvest exposure of both red- and green-leaf lettuce varieties to UV-A increased their nutritional quality by enhancing the accumulation of protein and other major essential nutrients.
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
Supplemental UV-A left shoot fresh mass, leaf area and leaf number unaffected in both lettuce varieties.
- Taxon
- Lettuce
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- shoot fresh mass, leaf area, and leaf numbere0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Many growth indices such as shoot fresh mass, leaf area, and leaf number were unaffected by supplemental UV-A in both varieties”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-day UV-A decreased shoot dry mass versus control.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- 6-day UV-A treatmente0
- Outcome
- shoot dry masse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shoot dry mass decreased in response to a 6-day UV-A treatment compared to the control”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased leaf chlorophyll in green-leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- green-leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- UV-A treatmente0
- Outcome
- chlorophylle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 3 or 6 dayse0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations increased significantly in green-leaf lettuce after 3 or 6 days of UV-A treatment, but only after 3 days of UV-A treatment in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased leaf carotenoid in green-leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- green-leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- UV-A treatmente0
- Outcome
- carotenoid concentrationse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 3 or 6 dayse0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations increased significantly in green-leaf lettuce after 3 or 6 days of UV-A treatment, but only after 3 days of UV-A treatment in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased leaf chlorophyll in red-leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- red-leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- UV-A treatmente0
- Outcome
- chlorophylle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 3 dayse0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations increased significantly in green-leaf lettuce after 3 or 6 days of UV-A treatment, but only after 3 days of UV-A treatment in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased leaf carotenoid in red-leaf lettuce.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- red-leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- UV-A treatmente0
- Outcome
- carotenoid concentrationse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 3 dayse0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations increased significantly in green-leaf lettuce after 3 or 6 days of UV-A treatment, but only after 3 days of UV-A treatment in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV-A increased protein accumulation in green-leaf lettuce by approximately 48%.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- green-leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- Supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- accumulation of proteine0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 48%e0
- Comparator
- the control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental UV-A increased the accumulation of protein by approximately 48% in green-leaf lettuce and 31% in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control plants”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV-A increased protein accumulation in red-leaf lettuce by approximately 31%.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- red-leaf lettucee0
- Treatment
- Supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- accumulation of proteine0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 31%e0
- Comparator
- the control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental UV-A increased the accumulation of protein by approximately 48% in green-leaf lettuce and 31% in red-leaf lettuce compared to the control plants”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased accumulation of phosphorus, potassium, calcium in lettuce.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- phosphorus, potassium, calciume0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf protein concentration increased significantly in both lettuce varieties along with a number of essential nutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, calcium, manganese, and sulfur in response to supplemental UV-A”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
UV-A increased accumulation of manganese, and sulfur in lettuce.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- manganese, and sulfure0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf protein concentration increased significantly in both lettuce varieties along with a number of essential nutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, calcium, manganese, and sulfur in response to supplemental UV-A”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Green-leaf lettuce accumulated more magnesium, copper and zinc under UV-A than control.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Material
- green-leaf lettucee0
- Outcome
- magnesium, copper, and zince0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- the control plantse0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“green-leaf lettuce accumulated higher amounts of magnesium, copper, and zinc compared to the control plants”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV-A lowered total phenolic compounds in both varieties.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- total phenolic compoundse0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the accumulation of total phenolic compounds and flavonoids in both varieties was lower under supplemental UV-A”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental UV-A lowered flavonoids in both varieties.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- supplemental UV-Ae0
- Outcome
- flavonoidse0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the accumulation of total phenolic compounds and flavonoids in both varieties was lower under supplemental UV-A”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
LED lenses had no consistent impact on most studied plant responses.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- LED lensese0
- Outcome
- plant responsese0
- Direction
- did not have a consistent impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of LED lenses did not have a consistent impact on most of the plant responses studied”
t0“Lettuce”
The same questions in other 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 · 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 →uv · physiology: pigments · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →uv · nutrient: content · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
uv · quality: protein · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.