Abstract
Abstract The effect of ozone on forage yield of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L. cv. Moapa) was determined at four controlled salinity levels. Plants were grown in gravel cultures in four environment‐controlled, sunlit chambers. Four salinity treatments (NaCl and CaCl 2 ) having osmotic potentials of −40, −200, −400, and −600 kilopascals (kPa) were replicated four times in each chamber. Alfalfa grown in ozone‐free chambers was compared with plants exposed to ozone 2 hours every day between cuttings. For nonsaline treatments, ozone at 10, 15, and 20 parts per hundred million (pphm) reduced forage yield by 16, 26, and 39%, respectively. As salinity increased, ozone had less effect on yield. Alfalfa exposed to 20 pphm of ozone for 2 hours daily yielded 25% more at −200 kPa osmotic potential than at the nonsaline level, −40 kPa. The residual effect of ozone treatments reduced yield in the next cutting. Salinity at all levels or ozone at 20 pphm increased water‐use efficiency of alfalfa; low concentrations of ozone had no effect on water‐use efficiency. Both ozone and salinity were required to increase leaf diffusion resistance; either factor alone had no effect.
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
At nonsaline conditions, 10 pphm ozone reduced yield by 16%.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- ozone at 10e0
- Outcome
- forage yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 16e0
- Qualifier
- For nonsaline treatmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For nonsaline treatments, ozone at 10, 15, and 20 parts per hundred million (pphm) reduced forage yield by 16, 26, and 39%, respectively.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
At nonsaline conditions, 15 pphm ozone reduced yield by 26%.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- 15e0
- Outcome
- forage yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 26e0
- Qualifier
- For nonsaline treatmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For nonsaline treatments, ozone at 10, 15, and 20 parts per hundred million (pphm) reduced forage yield by 16, 26, and 39%, respectively.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
At nonsaline conditions, 20 pphm ozone reduced yield by 39%.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- 20 parts per hundred million (pphm)e0
- Outcome
- forage yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 39%e0
- Qualifier
- For nonsaline treatmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For nonsaline treatments, ozone at 10, 15, and 20 parts per hundred million (pphm) reduced forage yield by 16, 26, and 39%, respectively.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing salinity reduced the ozone effect on yield.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- salinitye0
- Outcome
- effect on yielde0
- Direction
- lesse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As salinity increased, ozone had less effect on yield.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Under 20 pphm ozone for two hours daily, alfalfa yielded 25% more at −200 kPa than at −40 kPa.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- −200 kPa osmotic potentiale0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- 20 pphm of ozone for 2 hours dailye0
- Comparator
- nonsaline levele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Alfalfa exposed to 20 pphm of ozone for 2 hours daily yielded 25% more at −200 kPa osmotic potential than at the nonsaline level, −40 kPa.”
Claim · model-written summary
Ozone treatments reduced yield in the next cutting through residual effects.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- ozone treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- next cuttinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The residual effect of ozone treatments reduced yield in the next cutting.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
All salinity levels increased alfalfa water-use efficiency.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- Salinity at all levelse0
- Outcome
- water‐use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Salinity at all levels or ozone at 20 pphm increased water‐use efficiency of alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Ozone at 20 pphm increased alfalfa water-use efficiency.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- ozone at 20 pphme0
- Outcome
- water‐use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Salinity at all levels or ozone at 20 pphm increased water‐use efficiency of alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Low ozone concentrations had no effect on water-use efficiency.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- low concentrations of ozonee0
- Outcome
- water‐use efficiencye0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“low concentrations of ozone had no effect on water‐use efficiency.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined ozone and salinity increased leaf diffusion resistance.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- Both ozone and salinitye0
- Outcome
- leaf diffusion resistancee0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both ozone and salinity were required to increase leaf diffusion resistance; either factor alone had no effect.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Ozone alone did not affect leaf diffusion resistance.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- ozonee0
- Outcome
- leaf diffusion resistancee0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- alonee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both ozone and salinity were required to increase leaf diffusion resistance; either factor alone had no effect.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity alone did not affect leaf diffusion resistance.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- salinitye0
- Outcome
- leaf diffusion resistancee0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- alonee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both ozone and salinity were required to increase leaf diffusion resistance; either factor alone had no effect.”
t0“Alfalfa”
The same questions in other papers
ozone · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
salinity · disease · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →salinity · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →ozone · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.