Paper · 2000 · Photosynthetica

Tolerance to Water Stress in Tomato Cultivars

N.K. Srinivasa Rao; R.M. Bhatt; A.T. Sadashiva

12
claims
27
verbatim quotes
79
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The effects of plant water stress imposed at vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages of four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) on net photosynthetic rate (PN), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration rate (E), osmotic adjustment, and crop water stress index (CWSI) were investigated. Osmotic adjustment was the highest in cv. Arka Meghali, followed by cv. RFS-1. CWSI was lowest in cv. Arka Meghali and highest in cv. Pusa Ruby. Significant reduction in gs, E, and PN was observed in all the cultivars. The maximum reduction in E was observed in cv. Arka Saurabh during the fruiting stage (62.4 %) and maximum reduction in PN at the flowering stage in Pusa Ruby (53.1 %). Maximum PN was observed in Arka Meghali under water stress. The values of internal CO2 concentration (Ci) did not follow the decrease in gs which might be taken as an indication of mesophyll (non-stomatal) limitation to PN. Magnitude of PN decrease accompanying gs reductions varied in the four cultivars. Arka Meghali which had highest rate of gas exchange efficiency (PN/gs) under water deficits can be recommended for rainfed cultivation.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Osmotic adjustment was highest in Arka Meghali, followed by RFS-1.

Material
cv. Arka Meghalie0
Outcome
Osmotic adjustmente0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
cv. RFS-1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Osmotic adjustment was the highest in cv. Arka Meghali, followed by cv. RFS-1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–384 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crop water stress index was lowest in Arka Meghali.

Material
cv. Arka Meghalie0
Outcome
CWSIe0
Direction
loweste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWSI was lowest in cv. Arka Meghali and highest in cv. Pusa Ruby.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 385–450 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
e2

“crop water stress index (CWSI)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 256–286 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crop water stress index was highest in Pusa Ruby.

Material
cv. Pusa Rubye0
Outcome
CWSIe0
Direction
higheste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWSI was lowest in cv. Arka Meghali and highest in cv. Pusa Ruby.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 385–450 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water stress significantly reduced stomatal conductance, transpiration, and net photosynthesis in all cultivars.

Treatment
plant water stresse1
Outcome
gs, E, and PNe0
Direction
reductione0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant reduction in gs, E, and PN was observed in all the cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 451–524 · show in text ↑
e1

“The effects of plant water stress imposed at vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages of four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) on net photosynthetic rate (PN), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration rate (E), osmotic adjustment, and crop water stress index (CWSI) were investigated.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–305 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Arka Saurabh had a maximum transpiration reduction of 62.4% at fruiting.

Material
cv. Arka Saurabhe0
Organ / stage
fruiting stagee0
Treatment
plant water stresse2
Outcome
Ee0
Direction
maximum reductione0
Value
62.4 %e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The maximum reduction in E was observed in cv. Arka Saurabh during the fruiting stage (62.4 %) and maximum reduction in PN at the flowering stage in Pusa Ruby (53.1 %).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 525–693 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
e2

“plant water stress imposed at vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 15–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pusa Ruby had a maximum net photosynthesis reduction of 53.1% at flowering.

Material
Pusa Rubye0
Organ / stage
flowering stagee0
Treatment
plant water stresse2
Outcome
PNe0
Direction
maximum reductione0
Value
53.1 %e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The maximum reduction in E was observed in cv. Arka Saurabh during the fruiting stage (62.4 %) and maximum reduction in PN at the flowering stage in Pusa Ruby (53.1 %).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 525–693 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
e2

“plant water stress imposed at vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 15–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Arka Meghali had the maximum net photosynthetic rate under water stress.

Material
Arka Meghalie0
Outcome
PNe0
Direction
Maximume0
Qualifier
under water stresse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum PN was observed in Arka Meghali under water stress.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–753 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Internal CO2 concentration did not track the decrease in stomatal conductance.

Outcome
internal CO2 concentration (Ci)e0
Direction
did not follow the decreasee0
Comparator
gse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The values of internal CO2 concentration (Ci) did not follow the decrease in gs which might be taken as an indication of mesophyll (non-stomatal) limitation to PN.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 754–917 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The lack of matching Ci and gs declines may indicate mesophyll limitation to photosynthesis.

Outcome
limitation to PNe0
Qualifier
mesophyll (non-stomatal)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The values of internal CO2 concentration (Ci) did not follow the decrease in gs which might be taken as an indication of mesophyll (non-stomatal) limitation to PN.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 754–917 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The magnitude of PN decrease with gs reduction varied across four cultivars.

Outcome
PN decreasee0
Direction
variede0
Comparator
gs reductionse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Magnitude of PN decrease accompanying gs reductions varied in the four cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–999 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Arka Meghali had the highest gas exchange efficiency under water deficits.

Material
Arka Meghalie0
Outcome
gas exchange efficiency (PN/gs)e0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
under water deficitse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arka Meghali which had highest rate of gas exchange efficiency (PN/gs) under water deficits can be recommended for rainfed cultivation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1135 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Arka Meghali was recommended for rainfed cultivation.

Material
Arka Meghalie0
Outcome
recommended for rainfed cultivatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Arka Meghali which had highest rate of gas exchange efficiency (PN/gs) under water deficits can be recommended for rainfed cultivation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1135 · show in text ↑
e1

“four cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 91–147 · show in text ↑

drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

54 papers: 6 positive, 48 negative or no effect

47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 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.