Abstract
The responses of forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] varieties to salinity and irrigation frequency were studied from December 2007 to December 2008. Two salt tolerant varieties of forage sorghum namely Speedfeed and KFS4 were grown under salinity levels of 0, 5, 10 and 15 dS m -1 and irrigated when the leaf water potential reached -1(control),-1.5 and -2 MPa. Salinity and irrigation frequency significantly (P≤0.01) affected leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance. Variety×salinity interaction was significant on leaf water potential and stomatal conductance. The three factors interaction was significant (P≤0.01) on photosynthesis and stomatal conductance. Though both varieties were sensitive to salt and water deficit, the KFS4 variety had 7.4, 13.3, 9.1 and 5.8% higher leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance, respectively, compared to Speedfeed, hence KFS4 is more tolerant to stress conditions compared to Speedfeed variety. Combination effect showed when irrigation frequency is delayed at salinity level of 10-15 dS m -1 , the differences between irrigation at -2 MPa and other two irrigation frequencies (-1 to -1.5 MPa) were evident. Combination effect of high salinity and low water availability had an adverse effect on photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance. As photosynthesis required water in the process, when irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPa, the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance decreased by 43.4%, 13.8% and 27.6%, respectively. The decline was mostly between irrigation at -2 MPa and other two irrigation frequencies, it means irrigation of forage sorghum can be delayed till leaf water potential reaches -1.5 MPa, which takes about two weeks time.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity significantly affected sorghum leaf water potential and chlorophyll content.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Salinity and irrigation frequency significantly (P≤0.01) affected leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity significantly affected sorghum photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Salinity and irrigation frequency significantly (P≤0.01) affected leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation frequency significantly affected sorghum leaf water potential and chlorophyll content.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- irrigation frequencye0
- Outcome
- leaf water potential, chlorophyll contente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Salinity and irrigation frequency significantly (P≤0.01) affected leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation frequency significantly affected sorghum photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- irrigation frequencye0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductancee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Salinity and irrigation frequency significantly (P≤0.01) affected leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
The variety-by-salinity interaction significantly affected leaf water potential and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- Variety×salinity interactione0
- Outcome
- leaf water potential and stomatal conductancee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Variety×salinity interaction was significant on leaf water potential and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-factor interaction significantly affected photosynthesis and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- three factors interactione0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis and stomatal conductancee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The three factors interaction was significant (P≤0.01) on photosynthesis and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
KFS4 had 7.4% higher leaf water potential than Speedfeed.
Verbatim
e0“the KFS4 variety had 7.4, 13.3, 9.1 and 5.8% higher leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance, respectively, compared to Speedfeed”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
KFS4 had 13.3% higher chlorophyll content than Speedfeed.
Verbatim
e0“the KFS4 variety had 7.4, 13.3, 9.1 and 5.8% higher leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance, respectively, compared to Speedfeed”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
KFS4 had 9.1% higher photosynthetic rate than Speedfeed.
Verbatim
e0“the KFS4 variety had 7.4, 13.3, 9.1 and 5.8% higher leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance, respectively, compared to Speedfeed”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
KFS4 had 5.8% higher stomatal conductance than Speedfeed.
Verbatim
e0“the KFS4 variety had 7.4, 13.3, 9.1 and 5.8% higher leaf water potential, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance, respectively, compared to Speedfeed”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Both sorghum varieties were sensitive to salt and water deficit.
Verbatim
e0“Though both varieties were sensitive to salt and water deficit”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpreted KFS4 as more tolerant of stress than Speedfeed.
Verbatim
e0“hence KFS4 is more tolerant to stress conditions compared to Speedfeed variety.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
At salinity of 10-15 dS m -1, delayed irrigation revealed differences between irrigation at -2 MPa and irrigation at -1 to -1.5 MPa.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- irrigation at -2 MPae0
- Outcome
- differencese0
- Qualifier
- at salinity level of 10-15 dS m -1e0
- Comparator
- other two irrigation frequenciese0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Combination effect showed when irrigation frequency is delayed at salinity level of 10-15 dS m -1 , the differences between irrigation at -2 MPa and other two irrigation frequencies (-1 to -1.5 MPa) were evident.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
High salinity combined with low water availability adversely affected photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- high salinity and low water availabilitye0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- adverse effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Combination effect of high salinity and low water availability had an adverse effect on photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying irrigation from leaf water potential of -1 to -2 MPa decreased chlorophyll content by 43.4%.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPae0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 43.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“when irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPa, the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance decreased by 43.4%, 13.8% and 27.6%, respectively.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying irrigation from leaf water potential of -1 to -2 MPa decreased photosynthetic rate by 13.8%.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPae0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 13.8%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“when irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPa, the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance decreased by 43.4%, 13.8% and 27.6%, respectively.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying irrigation from leaf water potential of -1 to -2 MPa decreased stomatal conductance by 27.6%.
- Taxon
- forage sorghumst0
- Treatment
- irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPae0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 27.6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“when irrigation was delayed from the leaves water potential of -1 to -2 MPa, the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance decreased by 43.4%, 13.8% and 27.6%, respectively.”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
Most of the physiological decline occurred between irrigation at -2 MPa and the other two irrigation frequencies.
Verbatim
e0“The decline was mostly between irrigation at -2 MPa and other two irrigation frequencies”
t0“forage sorghums”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that forage sorghum irrigation can be delayed until leaf water potential reaches -1.5 MPa, approximately two weeks.
Verbatim
e0“it means irrigation of forage sorghum can be delayed till leaf water potential reaches -1.5 MPa, which takes about two weeks time.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · SorghumPositive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
irrigation · physiology: pigments · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →salinity · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumPositive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →soil water · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
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.