Paper · 2012 · Open Journal of Soil Science

Physiological Effects of Chitosan Coating on Wheat Growth and Activities of Protective Enzyme with Drought Tolerance

Defang Zeng; Xinrong Luo

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
124
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Seedling period is an important stage of plant growth. This research was mainly to analysis the influence of chitosan on wheat seedling growth and physiological mechanisms under drought stress. The results showed that the group coated with chitosan significantly improved the growth index such as germination rate, wet weight, root length, root active, and impacted physiological indices such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT)), the content of malwondialdehyde (MDA) and chlorophyll compared with CK under drought stress. Activities of POD, CAT and SOD increased and then decreased, the content of MDA increased under drought stress. But. variation rates of the group coated with chitosan were slower than that of CK, which indicates that chitosan can significantly improve anti-oxidant enzymes activity to clear timely active oxygen and reduce the content of MDA so as to alleviate the degree of damage in the drought stress and make seedlings grow better. The results also showed that chitosan improved chloro-phyll content than that of CK, which demonstrated that chlorophyll content significantly influenced the photosynthetic efficiency of the mutant and added wheat above ground biomass and the field experiment results showed that chitosan increased yield 13.6% than that of CK.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan coating significantly improved wheat seedling germination rate, wet weight and root length under drought relative to CK.

Treatment
coated with chitosane0
Outcome
germination rate, wet weight, root lengthe0
Direction
improvede0
Qualifier
under drought stresse0
Comparator
CKe0

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

e0

“The results showed that the group coated with chitosan significantly improved the growth index such as germination rate, wet weight, root length, root active, and impacted physiological indices such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT)), the content of malwondialdehyde (MDA) and chlorophyll compared with CK under drought stress.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–554 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan coating significantly improved seedling root activity under drought relative to CK.

Treatment
coated with chitosane0
Outcome
root activee0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
CKe0

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

e0

“The results showed that the group coated with chitosan significantly improved the growth index such as germination rate, wet weight, root length, root active, and impacted physiological indices such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT)), the content of malwondialdehyde (MDA) and chlorophyll compared with CK under drought stress.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–554 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

POD, CAT and SOD activities rose and then fell under drought stress.

Treatment
drought stresse0
Outcome
Activities of POD, CAT and SODe0
Direction
increased and then decreasede0

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

e0

“Activities of POD, CAT and SOD increased and then decreased, the content of MDA increased under drought stress.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 555–666 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MDA content increased under drought stress.

Treatment
drought stresse0
Outcome
content of MDAe0
Direction
increasede0

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

e0

“Activities of POD, CAT and SOD increased and then decreased, the content of MDA increased under drought stress.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 555–666 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan coated plants showed slower physiological variation than CK.

Treatment
coated with chitosane0
Outcome
variation ratese0
Direction
slowere0
Comparator
CKe0

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

e0

“variation rates of the group coated with chitosan were slower than that of CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–749 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan increased chlorophyll content relative to CK.

Treatment
chitosane0
Outcome
chloro-phyll contente0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
CKe0

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

e0

“chitosan improved chloro-phyll content than that of CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1020–1074 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan increased wheat field yield by 13.6% relative to CK.

Treatment
chitosane0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
13.6%e0
Comparator
CKe0

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

e0

“field experiment results showed that chitosan increased yield 13.6% than that of CK.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1234–1318 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–50 · show in text ↑

chitosan · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 22 positive, 1 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

chitosan · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

chitosan · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.