Abstract
A study on photosynthetic and yield effects of waterlogging of winter wheat at four stages of growth was conducted in specially designed experimental tanks during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons. Compared with the control, waterlogging treatments at tillering and jointing-booting stages reduced photosynthetic rate (P N) and transpiration (E) significantly, it also decreased average leaf water-use efficiency (WUE, defined as the ratio of P N to E) by 3.3% and 3.4% in both years. All parameters returned quickly to the control level after soil was drained. Damage to the photosynthetic apparatus during waterlogging resulted in a lower Fv/Fm ratio, especially at the first two stages. A strong reduction in root length, root mass, root/shoot ratio, total dry mass, and leaf area index were observed. The responses from vegetative plants at tillering and jointing-booting stages were greater than in generative plants at onset of flowering and at milky stages. The number of panicles per hectare at tillering stage and the spikelet per panicle at the stages of jointing-booting and at onset of flowering were also significantly reduced by waterlogging, giving 8.2-11.3% decrease of the grain yield relative to the control in both years. No significant difference in yield components and a grain yield was observed between the control and treatments applied at milky stages. These responses, modulated by the environmental conditions prevailing during and after waterlogging, included negative effects on the growth, photosynthetic apparatus, and the grain yield in winter wheat, but the effect was strongly stage-dependent.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at tillering and jointing-booting significantly reduced photosynthetic rate and transpiration.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- waterlogging treatments at tillering and jointing-booting stagese0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic rate (P N) and transpiration (E)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“Compared with the control, waterlogging treatments at tillering and jointing-booting stages reduced photosynthetic rate (P N) and transpiration (E) significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased average leaf water-use efficiency by 3.3% and 3.4% in both years.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging treatments at tillering and jointing-booting stagese1
- Outcome
- average leaf water-use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 3.3% and 3.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“it also decreased average leaf water-use efficiency (WUE, defined as the ratio of P N to E) by 3.3% and 3.4% in both years”
e1“waterlogging treatments at tillering and jointing-booting stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic parameters returned to control levels after drainage.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- All parameters returned quickly to the control levele0
- Qualifier
- after soil was drainede0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“All parameters returned quickly to the control level after soil was drained”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging lowered the Fv/Fm ratio, particularly at the first two stages.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- Fv/Fm ratioe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- especially at the first two stagese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“Damage to the photosynthetic apparatus during waterlogging resulted in a lower Fv/Fm ratio, especially at the first two stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging strongly reduced root length, root mass and root/shoot ratio.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge1
- Outcome
- root length, root mass, root/shoot ratioe0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“A strong reduction in root length, root mass, root/shoot ratio, total dry mass, and leaf area index were observed”
e1“waterlogging of winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging strongly reduced total dry mass and leaf area index.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge1
- Outcome
- total dry mass, and leaf area indexe0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“A strong reduction in root length, root mass, root/shoot ratio, total dry mass, and leaf area index were observed”
e1“waterlogging of winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Responses to waterlogging were greater in vegetative than generative plants.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- vegetative plants at tillering and jointing-booting stagese0
- Outcome
- responsese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- generative plants at onset of flowering and at milky stagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“The responses from vegetative plants at tillering and jointing-booting stages were greater than in generative plants at onset of flowering and at milky stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at tillering significantly reduced panicle number per hectare.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- tillering stagee0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- number of panicles per hectaree0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“The number of panicles per hectare at tillering stage and the spikelet per panicle at the stages of jointing-booting and at onset of flowering were also significantly reduced by waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at jointing-booting and flowering onset significantly reduced spikelets per panicle.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- jointing-booting and at onset of floweringe0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- spikelet per paniclee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“The number of panicles per hectare at tillering stage and the spikelet per panicle at the stages of jointing-booting and at onset of flowering were also significantly reduced by waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased grain yield by 8.2-11.3% relative to control.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge1
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 8.2-11.3%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“giving 8.2-11.3% decrease of the grain yield relative to the control in both years”
e1“reduced by waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at the milky stage showed no significant difference in yield components or grain yield from control.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- milky stagese0
- Treatment
- waterlogging treatmentse1
- Outcome
- yield components and a grain yielde0
- Direction
- No significant differencee0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat”
e0“No significant difference in yield components and a grain yield was observed between the control and treatments applied at milky stages”
e1“waterlogging treatments”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 97 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 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 · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
63 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
77 papers more in this group
See all 81 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 →flooding · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.