Paper · 1988 · Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology

Apparent photosynthesis in healthy and Puccinia recondita infected wheat plants

Glen D. Statler

9
claims
21
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Inoculation with a culture of Puccinia recondita resulted in a susceptible infection type (IT) on Thatcher, a moderately resistant IT on Lrl6, and a highly resistant IT on Lr\9.The apparent photosynthetic rate (APR) and stomatal conductance were determined on days 0,4, 6, 8, 12, 15, and 20 after inoculation.Significant reductions in APR were detected 8 days after inoculation of Thatcher and the line containing Lrl6.Differences between healthy and P. recondita inoculated plants increased on each date of measurement until day 20 after inoculation when the APR of infected plants of Thatcher and those containing Lr 16 was reduced to about 56% of healthy.There were no significant differences between healthy plants and plants carrying Lr 19 following inoculation with P. recondita for any sampling date.This demonstrated t he value of resistance to P. recondita.The numbers of uredia cm" 2 were significantly negatively correlated with APR on day 20 after inoculation for Thatcher and the Lr 16 line.At day 20 the average stomatal conductance for both Thatcher and the Lrl6 line was significantly less than that of the healthy controls.

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 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated Thatcher wheat showed a susceptible infection type to Puccinia recondita.

Material
Thatchere0
Treatment
Inoculation with a culture of Puccinia reconditae0
Interactor
Puccinia reconditaPuccinia reconditae0pathogen
Outcome
susceptible infection typee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Puccinia recondita
Puccinia recondita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorybjoerns · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“Inoculation with a culture of Puccinia recondita resulted in a susceptible infection type (IT) on Thatcher, a moderately resistant IT on Lrl6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–141 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Lrl6 wheat line showed a moderately resistant infection type to Puccinia recondita.

Material
Lrl6e0
Interactor
Puccinia reconditaPuccinia reconditae0pathogen
Outcome
moderately resistant ITe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Puccinia recondita
Puccinia recondita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorybjoerns · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“Inoculation with a culture of Puccinia recondita resulted in a susceptible infection type (IT) on Thatcher, a moderately resistant IT on Lrl6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–141 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Lr9 wheat line showed a highly resistant infection type to Puccinia recondita.

Material
Lr\9e1
Interactor
Puccinia reconditaPuccinia reconditae0pathogen
Outcome
highly resistant ITe1

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Puccinia recondita
Puccinia recondita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorybjoerns · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“Inoculation with a culture of Puccinia recondita resulted in a susceptible infection type (IT) on Thatcher, a moderately resistant IT on Lrl6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–141 · show in text ↑
e1

“a highly resistant IT on Lr\9”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 147–176 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Infection significantly reduced apparent photosynthetic rate 8 days after inoculation in Thatcher and the Lrl6 line.

Material
Thatcher and the line containing Lrl6e1
Treatment
inoculatione1
Interactor
P. reconditaPuccinia reconditae2pathogen
Outcome
APRe1
Direction
reductionse1
Qualifier
8 days after inoculatione1
Comparator
healthye2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Puccinia recondita
Puccinia recondita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorybjoerns · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“Significant reductions in APR were detected 8 days after inoculation of Thatcher and the line containing Lrl6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 309–418 · show in text ↑
e2

“Differences between healthy and P. recondita inoculated plants increased on each date of measurement until day 20 after inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–550 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At day 20 the apparent photosynthetic rate of infected Thatcher and Lr16-carrying plants was reduced to about 56% of healthy plants.

Material
Thatcher and those containing Lr 16e3
Treatment
inoculatione3
Outcome
APRe3
Direction
reducede3
Value
about 56%e3
Qualifier
day 20 after inoculatione3
Comparator
healthye3

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e3

“until day 20 after inoculation when the APR of infected plants of Thatcher and those containing Lr 16 was reduced to about 56% of healthy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 520–657 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Differences in apparent photosynthetic rate between healthy and P. recondita inoculated plants increased over time until day 20.

Interactor
P. reconditaPuccinia reconditae2pathogen
Outcome
Differencese2
Direction
increasede2
Comparator
healthye2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Puccinia recondita
Puccinia recondita · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorybjoerns · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e2

“Differences between healthy and P. recondita inoculated plants increased on each date of measurement until day 20 after inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–550 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat plants carrying Lr19 showed no significant difference in apparent photosynthetic rate from healthy plants after inoculation with P. recondita.

Material
plants carrying Lr 19e5
Treatment
inoculation with P. reconditae5
Outcome
APRe6
Direction
no significant differencese5
Comparator
healthy plantse5

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e5

“There were no significant differences between healthy plants and plants carrying Lr 19 following inoculation with P. recondita for any sampling date”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 658–806 · show in text ↑
e6

“The apparent photosynthetic rate (APR) and stomatal conductance were determined on days 0,4, 6, 8, 12, 15, and 20 after inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 177–308 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Uredia counts were significantly negatively correlated with apparent photosynthetic rate on day 20 in Thatcher and the Lr16 line.

Material
Thatcher and the Lr 16 linee7
Outcome
APRe7
Direction
negatively correlatede7
Qualifier
day 20 after inoculatione7

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e7

“significantly negatively correlated with APR on day 20 after inoculation for Thatcher and the Lr 16 line”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 899–1003 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

On day 20 stomatal conductance in Thatcher and the Lrl6 line was significantly lower than in healthy controls.

Material
Thatcher and the Lrl6 linee1
Outcome
stomatal conductancee1
Direction
significantly lesse1
Comparator
healthy controlse1

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infected wheat plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“At day 20 the average stomatal conductance for both Thatcher and the Lrl6 line was significantly less than that of the healthy controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1139 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Puccinia recondita · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

42 papers: 34 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 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.