Paper · 2007 · Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science

Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Cowpea Genotypes to Water Stress Under Glasshouse and Field Conditions

F. Hamidou; G. Zombre; S. Braconnier

11
claims
26
verbatim quotes
80
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Five cowpea genotypes, Gorom local (Go), KVX61‐1 (KV), Mouride (Mo), Bambey 21 (B21) and TN88‐63 (TN), differing in their susceptibility to water stress, were studied under glasshouse and field conditions, to determine their physiological, biochemical and agronomic responses to water deficit at flowering stage. Effect of water deficit on leaf water potential ( ψ l ), canopy temperature, gaseous exchange, leaf proline content, total protein and starch contents, maximal quantum yield ( ϕ p 0 ) and yield components was examined. Water deficit significantly increased the canopy temperature and the proline content of the five genotypes while ψ l , gaseous exchanges, ϕ p 0 and starch content decreased significantly. Yield components, with the exception of seed number per pod, of the five genotypes, were also significantly affected. Under glasshouse and field conditions, the results showed that stomatal closure is the common strategy used by the five genotypes to avoid dehydration. Go, Mo and TN tolerated water stress better than B21 and KV. Furthermore, Go and Mo recovered more rapidly after rewatering than B21 and KV. These latter genotypes are revealed to be sensitive with low recovery capacity. The results suggest that the maintenance of net photosynthesis and solute accumulation seem to be traits conferring water stress tolerance in Go, Mo and TN. These traits and recovery capacity could be valuable selection criteria for higher yields under water deficit conditions.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit significantly increased canopy temperature in five cowpea genotypes.

Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
canopy temperaturee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Water deficit significantly increased the canopy temperature and the proline content of the five genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–647 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit significantly increased proline content in five cowpea genotypes.

Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
proline contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Water deficit significantly increased the canopy temperature and the proline content of the five genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–647 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit significantly decreased leaf water potential and gaseous exchange in five cowpea genotypes.

Treatment
water deficite1
Outcome
ψ l , gaseous exchangese0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while ψ l , gaseous exchanges, ϕ p 0 and starch content decreased significantly.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–728 · show in text ↑
e1

“Effect of water deficit on leaf water potential”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–369 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit significantly decreased maximal quantum yield in five cowpea genotypes.

Treatment
water deficite1
Outcome
ϕ p 0e0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while ψ l , gaseous exchanges, ϕ p 0 and starch content decreased significantly.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–728 · show in text ↑
e1

“Effect of water deficit on leaf water potential”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–369 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit significantly decreased starch content in five cowpea genotypes.

Treatment
water deficite1
Outcome
starch contente0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while ψ l , gaseous exchanges, ϕ p 0 and starch content decreased significantly.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–728 · show in text ↑
e1

“Effect of water deficit on leaf water potential”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–369 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit significantly affected cowpea yield components except seed number per pod.

Treatment
water deficite1
Outcome
Yield componentse0
Qualifier
with the exception of seed number per pode0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yield components, with the exception of seed number per pod, of the five genotypes, were also significantly affected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 729–846 · show in text ↑
e1

“Effect of water deficit on leaf water potential”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–369 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stomatal closure was a common dehydration avoidance strategy across five cowpea genotypes in glasshouse and field conditions.

Outcome
avoid dehydratione0
Qualifier
stomatal closuree0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“stomatal closure is the common strategy used by the five genotypes to avoid dehydration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 910–997 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Go, Mo and TN tolerated water stress better than B21 and KV.

Material
Go, Mo and TNe0
Outcome
tolerated water stresse0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
B21 and KVe0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Go, Mo and TN tolerated water stress better than B21 and KV.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 999–1059 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Go and Mo recovered more rapidly after rewatering than B21 and KV.

Material
Go and Moe0
Outcome
recoverede0
Direction
more rapidlye0
Comparator
B21 and KVe0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Go and Mo recovered more rapidly after rewatering than B21 and KV.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1139 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maintenance of net photosynthesis and solute accumulation were proposed as water stress tolerance traits in Go, Mo and TN.

Material
Go, Mo and TNe0
Outcome
water stress tolerancee0
Qualifier
maintenance of net photosynthesis and solute accumulatione0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maintenance of net photosynthesis and solute accumulation seem to be traits conferring water stress tolerance in Go, Mo and TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1375 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors proposed these traits and recovery capacity as selection criteria for higher yields under water deficit.

Outcome
selection criteria for higher yields under water deficit conditionse0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“These traits and recovery capacity could be valuable selection criteria for higher yields under water deficit conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1377–1498 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 43–49 · show in text ↑

drought · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

52 papers: 9 positive, 43 negative or no effect

42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

drought · quality: sugar starch · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

7 papers: 0 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. 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.