Claim · model-written summary
In the second E1 year, grain yield at S1 and S3 was similar and below S2.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- waterlogging at S1 and S3e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- In the second year of E1e0
- Comparator
- waterlogging conditions at S2e0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the second year of E1, grain yield under waterlogging at S1 and S3 was similar but significantly lower than under waterlogging conditions at S2”
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 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.
- Association Stage and duration of waterlogging showed no significant interaction.
- 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.