Abstract
The agronomic and physiological effects of waterlogging in winter wheat were examined at four growth stages in the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 seasons. In both seasons, the greatest yield penalties occurred by waterlogging at the tillering stage (10%–15% decrease), followed by the jointing stage; however, waterlogging at the grain filling stage had less effect on the yield. The lower grain yield caused by waterlogging at the tillering stage was primarily reflected in reductions in spike and grain numbers per m2. Waterlogging at the jointing and booting stages reduced grain weight through reduced dry matter translocation. In addition, waterlogging at the tillering stage significantly reduced chlorophyll content and thus photosynthetic capacity, resulting in a lower Fv /Fm ratio, apparent electron transport rate (ETR), effective quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII) and photochemical quenching (qP). However, waterlogging at the grain filling stage improved the leaf photosynthetic capacity and grain yield. We found that the tillering stage was most the susceptible to waterlogging in wheat; therefore, the maintenance of photosynthetic performance after anthesis could be a reasonable strategy for increasing grain yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the tillering stage caused the greatest yield penalty, a 10%–15% decrease.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Organ / stage
- tillering stagee1
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the tillering stagee1
- Outcome
- yield penaltiese1
- Direction
- decreasee1
- Value
- 10%–15%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e1“the greatest yield penalties occurred by waterlogging at the tillering stage (10%–15% decrease), followed by the jointing stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the jointing stage caused the second-largest yield penalty, after the tillering stage.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- jointing stagee1
- Outcome
- yield penaltiese1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede1
- Qualifier
- followed bye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e1“the greatest yield penalties occurred by waterlogging at the tillering stage (10%–15% decrease), followed by the jointing stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the grain filling stage had less effect on yield.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the grain filling stagee2
- Outcome
- effect on the yielde2
- Qualifier
- less effecte2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e2“however, waterlogging at the grain filling stage had less effect on the yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the tillering stage reduced spike and grain numbers per m2.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the tillering stagee3
- Outcome
- spike and grain numbers per m2e3
- Direction
- reductionse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e3“The lower grain yield caused by waterlogging at the tillering stage was primarily reflected in reductions in spike and grain numbers per m2”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the jointing and booting stages reduced grain weight through reduced dry matter translocation.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Waterlogging at the jointing and booting stagese4
- Outcome
- grain weighte4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Qualifier
- through reduced dry matter translocatione4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e4“Waterlogging at the jointing and booting stages reduced grain weight through reduced dry matter translocation”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the tillering stage significantly reduced chlorophyll content.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the tillering stagee5
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente5
- Direction
- reducede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e5“waterlogging at the tillering stage significantly reduced chlorophyll content”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the tillering stage lowered Fv/Fm, apparent electron transport rate and effective quantum yield of photosystem II.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the tillering stagee6
- Outcome
- Fv /Fm ratio, apparent electron transport rate (ETR), effective quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII)e6
- Direction
- lowere6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e6“waterlogging at the tillering stage significantly reduced chlorophyll content and thus photosynthetic capacity, resulting in a lower Fv /Fm ratio, apparent electron transport rate (ETR), effective quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII) and photochemical quenching (qP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the tillering stage lowered photochemical quenching (qP).
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the tillering stagee6
- Outcome
- photochemical quenching (qP)e6
- Direction
- lowere6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e6“waterlogging at the tillering stage significantly reduced chlorophyll content and thus photosynthetic capacity, resulting in a lower Fv /Fm ratio, apparent electron transport rate (ETR), effective quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSII) and photochemical quenching (qP)”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the grain filling stage improved leaf photosynthetic capacity and grain yield.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the grain filling stagee7
- Outcome
- leaf photosynthetic capacity and grain yielde7
- Direction
- improvede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e7“waterlogging at the grain filling stage improved the leaf photosynthetic capacity and grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The tillering stage was the most susceptible growth stage of wheat to waterlogging.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- tillering stagee0
- Outcome
- susceptible to waterlogginge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We found that the tillering stage was most the susceptible to waterlogging in wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest that maintaining photosynthetic performance after anthesis could be a strategy for increasing wheat grain yield.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- maintenance of photosynthetic performance after anthesise1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“waterlogging in winter wheat”
e1“the maintenance of photosynthetic performance after anthesis could be a reasonable strategy for increasing grain yield”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →tillage · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →flooding · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.