Abstract
Earlier research works conducted to identify mechanisms of drought resistance in grain legumes under soil water stress of -0.6 MPa showed that drought resistance (maintenace of turgor) in chick pea was due to a significant decrease in osmotic potential (osmotic adjustment) while in common bean it was due to maintenance of high leaf water potential, but not due to osmotic adjustment. Green house experiments were conducted in the University of Hohenheim, Germany to determine whether maintenance of high plant water potential in common bean under stress was the function of stomatal regulation and/or root growth. Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa ) decreased the water potential to -0.35 and -0.89 MPa, accompanied by a dry matter decrease of 25 and 15% in common bean and chick pea, respectively. Higher dry matter decrease in common bean was due to reduced CO2-fixation, whereby photosythesis was reduced by 75% in common bean but only by 20% in chickpea. Significant decrease in the rate of photosynthesis decreased the sugar reserve (glucose, fructose and sucrose) of commont bean significantly, which could be responsible for the reduced biomass synthesis. Decrease in the rate of photosythesis was attributed to significant decrease in stomatal conductance. However, water use efficiency was significantly higher in common bean than in chick pea regardless of water regimes. A rhizotrone experiment showed that root length density of common bean was higher than that of chick pea (by a factor of two), accompanied by higher root weight. It was concluded that high plant water potential of common beans under stress was not due to osmotic adjustment but it was the function of effective stomatal regulation and robust root system. Key words/phrases: Common bean, chickpea, drought resistance, root density, stomata regulation SINET: Ethiopian Journal of Science Vol.26(2) 2003: 137-144
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier work attributed chick pea drought resistance to osmotic adjustment.
- Taxon
- chick pea
Cicer arietinume0 - Outcome
- drought resistancee0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- osmotic adjustmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought resistance (maintenace of turgor) in chick pea was due to a significant decrease in osmotic potential (osmotic adjustment)”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier work attributed common bean drought resistance to maintained leaf water potential rather than osmotic adjustment.
- Taxon
- common bean
Phaseolus vulgarise0 - Outcome
- maintenance of high leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- maintenancee0
- Qualifier
- osmotic adjustmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in common bean it was due to maintenance of high leaf water potential, but not due to osmotic adjustment”
Claim · model-written summary
Mild drought decreased water potential in common bean to -0.35 MPa.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa )e0
- Outcome
- water potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -0.35e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa ) decreased the water potential to -0.35 and -0.89 MPa, accompanied by a dry matter decrease of 25 and 15% in common bean and chick pea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mild drought decreased water potential in chick pea to -0.89 MPa.
- Taxon
- chick peaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa )e0
- Outcome
- water potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -0.89 MPae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa ) decreased the water potential to -0.35 and -0.89 MPa, accompanied by a dry matter decrease of 25 and 15% in common bean and chick pea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mild drought decreased common bean dry matter by 25%.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- mild droughte1
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 25e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a dry matter decrease of 25 and 15% in common bean and chick pea, respectively”
e1“Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa )”
Claim · model-written summary
Mild drought decreased chick pea dry matter by 15%.
- Taxon
- chick peaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- mild droughte1
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 15%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a dry matter decrease of 25 and 15% in common bean and chick pea, respectively”
e1“Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa )”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthesis under drought was reduced by 75% in common bean.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- mild droughte1
- Outcome
- photosythesise0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 75%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosythesis was reduced by 75% in common bean but only by 20% in chickpea”
e1“Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa )”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthesis under drought was reduced by 20% in chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- mild droughte1
- Outcome
- photosythesise0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosythesis was reduced by 75% in common bean but only by 20% in chickpea”
e1“Seven days mild drought (-0.15 MPa )”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced photosynthesis was attributed to decreased stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise1
- Outcome
- rate of photosythesise0
- Direction
- Decreasee0
- Qualifier
- stomatal conductancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Decrease in the rate of photosythesis was attributed to significant decrease in stomatal conductance”
e1“common bean than in chick pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreased photosynthesis significantly reduced glucose, fructose and sucrose reserves in common bean.
Verbatim
e0“Significant decrease in the rate of photosynthesis decreased the sugar reserve (glucose, fructose and sucrose) of commont bean significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced sugar reserve was proposed as a possible cause of reduced biomass synthesis.
Verbatim
e0“which could be responsible for the reduced biomass synthesis”
e1“the sugar reserve (glucose, fructose and sucrose) of commont bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean had significantly higher water use efficiency than chick pea across water regimes.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- regardless of water regimese0
- Comparator
- chick peae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water use efficiency was significantly higher in common bean than in chick pea regardless of water regimes”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean root length density was twice that of chick pea.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- root length densitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- by a factor of twoe0
- Comparator
- chick peae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root length density of common bean was higher than that of chick pea (by a factor of two)”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean root weight was higher than chick pea root weight.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- root weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- chick peae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root length density of common bean was higher than that of chick pea (by a factor of two), accompanied by higher root weight”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed high common bean water potential under stress to stomatal regulation and a robust root system.
- Taxon
- common beansPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- high plant water potentiale0
- Qualifier
- effective stomatal regulation and robust root systeme0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“high plant water potential of common beans under stress was not due to osmotic adjustment but it was the function of effective stomatal regulation and robust root system”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: water · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Results differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →drought · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →drought · growth · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Results differ
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →drought · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.