Abstract
To model the impact of grazing on the growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), we measured photosynthesis in the field. Grazing may affect photosynthesis as a consequence of changes to leaf water status, nitrogen content per unit leaf area (Na) or photosynthetic enzyme activity. While light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates (Asat) of field-grown wheat were unchanged during grazing, Asat transiently increased by 33–68% compared with ungrazed leaves over a 2- to 4-week period after grazing ended. Grazing reduced leaf mass per unit area, increased stomatal conductance and increased intercellular CO2 concentrations (Ci) by 36–38%, 88–169% and 17–20%, respectively. Grazing did not alter Na. Using a photosynthesis model, we demonstrated that the increase in Asat after grazing required an increase in Rubisco activity of up to 53%, whereas the increase in Ci could only increase Asat by up to 13%. Increased Rubisco activity was associated with a partial alleviation of leaf water stress. We observed a 68% increase in leaf water potential of grazed plants that could be attributed to reduced leaf area index and canopy evaporative demand, as well as to increased rainfall infiltration into soil. The grazing of rain-fed grain cereals may be tailored to relieve plant water stress and enhance leaf photosynthesis.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic CO2 assimilation was unchanged during grazing.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- grazinge1
- Outcome
- light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates (Asat)e1
- Direction
- unchangede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates (Asat) of field-grown wheat were unchanged during grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
Assimilation rose by 33–68% for 2 to 4 weeks after grazing ended versus ungrazed leaves.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- grazinge1
- Outcome
- Asate1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 33–68%e1
- Qualifier
- 2- to 4-week periode1
- Comparator
- ungrazed leavese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Asat transiently increased by 33–68% compared with ungrazed leaves over a 2- to 4-week period after grazing ended”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing reduced leaf mass per unit area by 36–38%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Grazinge1
- Outcome
- leaf mass per unit areae1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 36–38%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Grazing reduced leaf mass per unit area, increased stomatal conductance and increased intercellular CO2 concentrations (Ci) by 36–38%, 88–169% and 17–20%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing increased stomatal conductance by 88–169%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Grazinge1
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 88–169%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Grazing reduced leaf mass per unit area, increased stomatal conductance and increased intercellular CO2 concentrations (Ci) by 36–38%, 88–169% and 17–20%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing increased intercellular CO2 concentrations (Ci) by 17–20%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Grazinge1
- Outcome
- intercellular CO2 concentrations (Ci)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 17–20%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Grazing reduced leaf mass per unit area, increased stomatal conductance and increased intercellular CO2 concentrations (Ci) by 36–38%, 88–169% and 17–20%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing did not alter leaf nitrogen content per unit area.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Grazinge1
- Outcome
- Nae1
- Direction
- did not altere1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Grazing did not alter Na”
Claim · model-written summary
The photosynthesis model required up to 53% greater Rubisco activity to explain increased assimilation after grazing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“the increase in Asat after grazing required an increase in Rubisco activity of up to 53%”
Claim · model-written summary
The modeled intercellular CO2 increase could raise assimilation by at most 13%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“the increase in Ci could only increase Asat by up to 13%”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater Rubisco activity was associated with partial relief of leaf water stress.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Gene
- Rubiscoe1
- Outcome
- leaf water stresse1
- Direction
- alleviatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Increased Rubisco activity was associated with a partial alleviation of leaf water stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazed plants had 68% higher leaf water potential.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- grazede1
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 68%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“68% increase in leaf water potential of grazed plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced canopy evaporative demand and leaf area index, and increased soil rainfall infiltration were attributed as causes of higher leaf water potential.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- leaf area index and canopy evaporative demande1
- Qualifier
- increased rainfall infiltration into soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“attributed to reduced leaf area index and canopy evaporative demand, as well as to increased rainfall infiltration into soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing rain-fed grain cereals may be adjusted to relieve water stress and enhance leaf photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- grazinge1
- Outcome
- relieve plant water stress and enhance leaf photosynthesise1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“The grazing of rain-fed grain cereals may be tailored to relieve plant water stress and enhance leaf photosynthesis”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →grazing · physiology: gas exchange · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
grazing · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
grazing · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
grazing · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
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.