The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of Natural Intensities of Visible and Ultraviolet Radiation on Epidermal Ultraviolet Screening and Photosynthesis in Grape Leaves
Open accessAbstract
Grape (Vitis vinifera cv Silvaner) vine plants were cultivated under shaded conditions in the absence of ultraviolet (UV) radiation in a greenhouse, and subsequently placed outdoors under three different light regimes for 7 d. Different light regimes were produced by filters transmitting natural radiation, or screening out the UV-B (280–315 nm), or screening out the UV-A (315–400 nm) and the UV-B spectral range. During exposure, synthesis of UV-screening phenolics in leaves was quantified using HPLC: All treatments increased concentrations of hydroxycinnamic acids but the rise was highest, reaching 230% of the initial value, when UV radiation was absent. In contrast, UV-B radiation specifically increased flavonoid concentrations resulting in more than a 10-fold increase. Transmittance in the UV of all extracted phenolics was lower than epidermal UV transmittance determined fluorimetrically, and the two parameters were curvilinearly related. It is suggested that curvilinearity results from different absorption properties of the homogeneously dissolved phenolics in extracts and of the non-homogeneous distribution of phenolics in the epidermis. UV-B-dependent inhibition of maximum photochemical yield of photosystem II (PSII), measured as variable fluorescence of dark-adapted leaves, recovered in parallel to the buildup of epidermal screening for UV-B radiation, suggesting that PSII is protected against UV-B damage by epidermal screening. However, UV-B inhibition of CO2assimilation rates was not diminished by efficient UV-B screening. We propose that protection of UV-B inactivation of PSII is observed because preceding damage is efficiently repaired while those factors determining UV-B inhibition of CO2 assimilation recover more slowly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Significance of flavonoids in plant resistance: a review
Treutter, D. (2006) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-006-0068-8 · Cited by 1,253
Besufkad, A., Worku, Y., Desalegn, F., & Aragaw, D. (2011) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.4172/2157 · Cited by 847
Multiple functional roles of flavonoids in photoprotection
Agati, G., & Tattini, M. (2010) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03269.x · Cited by 803
Agati, G., Biricolti, S., Guidi, L., Ferrini, F., Fini, A., & Tattini, M. (2011) · Journal of Plant Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jplph.2010.07.016 · Cited by 289
Light quality affects flavonoid biosynthesis in young berries of Cabernet Sauvignon grape
Koyama, K., Ikeda, H., Poudel, P. R., & Goto-Yamamoto, N. (2012) · Phytochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2012.02.026 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Kolb, C. A., Käser, M. A., Kopecký, J., Zotz, G., Riederer, M., & Pfündel, E. E.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-11-01
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 863-875
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W2139411417
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of Natural Intensities of Visible and Ultraviolet Radiation on Epidermal Ultraviolet Screening and Photosynthesis in Grape Leaves. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.010373
- The paper
- Kolb, C. A., Käser, M. A., Kopecký, J., Zotz, G., Riederer, M., & Pfündel, E. E. (2001). Effects of Natural Intensities of Visible and Ultraviolet Radiation on Epidermal Ultraviolet Screening and Photosynthesis in Grape Leaves. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.010373
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.