Abstract
This research was conducted in a research greenhouse at the College of Agriculture in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad to investigate the impact of five drought levels (-0.3, -3, -6, -9 and -12 bar) on physiological and morphological characteristics of nine chickpea genotypes including MCC101, MCC174, MCC276, MCC477, MCC327, MCC476, JAM, Karaj12-60-31and ILC482. The experiment used 5×9 factorial laid out in randomized complete design with 4 replications. The genotypes were exposed to drought stress 10 days after emergence. Some traits were measured during growth season (including plant height, leaf number, flower and pod number, length and number of lateral branch) that all of them shown significant differences in the first stage of stress between genotypes and then the effects of drought were appeared. In majority of genotypes reduction in the flowering and podding time were observed. Flower number is a favor parameter in the assessment of drought tolerance genotypes. Most measured traits imposed significant differences in all levels of drought stress, genotypes and interaction of them at the end of growth season. The highest amount of all measured parameters were observed in the field capacity (-0.3 bar). Among the levels of water potential tested -3 and -6 bar were the best treatment for evaluating drought stress of chickpea genotypes. Pod and seed weight did not form in heavy drought stress. Among genotypes tested ILC482, MCC276 and MCC 477 were the best genotypes in terms of responsing to drought stress.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Measured growth and reproductive traits differed significantly among chickpea genotypes at the first stress stage.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Outcome
- plant height, leaf number, flower and pod numbere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant height, leaf number, flower and pod number, length and number of lateral branch) that all of them shown significant differences in the first stage of stress between genotypes”
t0“chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering and podding time were reduced in most chickpea genotypes.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Outcome
- flowering and podding timee0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- majority of genotypese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In majority of genotypes reduction in the flowering and podding time were observed”
t0“chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Most measured traits differed significantly across drought levels, genotypes, and their interaction at season end.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Outcome
- Most measured traitse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most measured traits imposed significant differences in all levels of drought stress, genotypes and interaction of them at the end of growth season”
t0“chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
All measured parameters were highest at field capacity, -0.3 bar.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Outcome
- all measured parameterse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- -0.3 bare0
- Setting
- field capacitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest amount of all measured parameters were observed in the field capacity (-0.3 bar)”
t0“chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod and seed weight did not form under heavy drought stress.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- heavy drought stresse0
- Outcome
- Pod and seed weighte0
- Direction
- did not forme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pod and seed weight did not form in heavy drought stress”
t0“chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged -3 and -6 bar best for evaluating chickpea drought stress.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- -3 and -6 bare0
- Outcome
- evaluating drought stresse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“-3 and -6 bar were the best treatment for evaluating drought stress of chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
ILC482, MCC276, and MCC 477 had the best drought responses among tested genotypes.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ILC482, MCC276 and MCC 477e0
- Outcome
- responsing to drought stresse0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ILC482, MCC276 and MCC 477 were the best genotypes in terms of responsing to drought stress”
t0“chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.