Claim · model-written summary
Resistant cultivars tended to recover more rapidly after watering resumed.
- Taxon
- field bean (vicia faba L. Var. Minor) and field pea (pisum sativum L.)t0
- Material
- drought‐resistant cultivarse0
- Outcome
- recoverye0
- Direction
- more rapide0
Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
t0“field bean (vicia faba L. Var. Minor) and field pea (pisum sativum L.)”
e0“the drought‐resistant cultivars showed a general tendency for a more rapid recovery.”
Title
S. Grzesiak; M. Grzesiak; T. Hura Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 1999. doi:10.1046/j.1439-037x.1999.00340.x
Other claims from this paper (11)
- Observation After five days of drought, net photosynthesis and transpiration declined more in resistant than susceptible cultivars.
- Observation After five days of drought, stomatal resistance increased more in resistant cultivars.
- Observation After ten days of drought, photosynthesis, transpiration and water potential declined more in susceptible cultivars.
- Observation Resistant and susceptible cultivars differed significantly in carbon assimilation and translocation.
- Observation Root carbon accumulation increased less in drought susceptible cultivars.
- Observation After watering resumed, most measurements showed no evidence of drought effects.
- Observation The cultivars showed genetic variation in drought tolerance.
- Mechanism The authors propose that resistant cultivars conserve hydration through stomatal closure.
- Mechanism Changes in carbon assimilation and accumulation may explain differing drought responses.
- Mechanism Differences in energy demand may explain radioactivity losses.
- Mechanism Drought harm to root growth may explain weaker root carbon accumulation in sensitive cultivars.