Claim · model-written summary
The cultivars showed genetic variation in drought tolerance.
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Verbatim
t0“field bean (vicia faba L. Var. Minor) and field pea (pisum sativum L.)”
e0“Our results confirm the existence of genetic variability in drought tolerance among the cultivars of field bean and field pea.”
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 Resistant cultivars tended to recover more rapidly after watering resumed.
- 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.