Claim · model-written summary
Stage and duration of waterlogging showed no significant interaction.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- duration of waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- interaction between the stage and duration of waterlogginge0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant interaction between the stage and duration of waterlogging”
t0“Wheat”
Title
Jinfeng Ding; Peng Liang; Peng Wu; et al. Agronomy 2020. doi:10.3390/agronomy10010130
Other claims from this paper (9)
- Intervention effect In E1, waterlogging at S1 and S2 yielded less grain than at S3.
- Intervention effect In the second E1 year, grain yield at S1 and S3 was similar and below S2.
- Intervention effect Waterlogging at S1 and S2 decreased kernel number per spike and 1000-kernel weight.
- Intervention effect Waterlogging at S3 decreased 1000-kernel weight.
- Observation Varieties did not change which stages reduced grain yield and yield components most.
- Intervention effect Longer waterlogging exposure decreased grain yield.
- Intervention effect Grain yield was lower after 15 days than after five days of waterlogging.
- Mechanism The authors infer greater reliance on kernel weight could reduce yield loss at S1 and S2.
- Observation Stem elongation was identified as the stage most affected by waterlogging.