Abstract
Oat ( Arena byzantina C. Koch) cultivars developed differential Fe chlorosis symptoms when grown in field trials on alkaline soils in south Texas. To determine why they differed, ‘TAM 0‐312’ (Fe‐inefficient), ‘Coker 227’ (Fe‐efficlent), and ‘TAM 0‐301’ and ‘73C1952’ (intermediate in Fe response) oats were tested in alkaline soils and in nutrient solutions. Physiologically, Coker 227 responded more favorably to Fe stress (reduced Fe 3+ to Fe 2+ at the root) than TAM 0‐312. More significantly, the Ca concentration was consistently about 2,500 µg/g dry matter greater in TAM 0‐312 than in Coker 227. Although not consistent, the P concentration was often greater in TAM 0‐312 than in Coker 227 which would also accentuate Fe chlorosis. We suggest that Ca effectively competes with or inactivates Fe in TAM 0‐312, thus causing Fe chlorosis to develop in this cultivar but not in Coker 227.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Coker 227 oat responded more favorably to Fe stress than TAM 0‐312, with more Fe reduction at the root.
- Taxon
- Oat
Avena sativae0 - Material
- Coker 227e1
- Treatment
- Fe stresse1
- Outcome
- reduced Fe 3+ to Fe 2+ at the roote1
- Direction
- more favorablye1
- Comparator
- TAM 0‐312e1
- Setting
- south Texase0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oat ( Arena byzantina C. Koch) cultivars developed differential Fe chlorosis symptoms when grown in field trials on alkaline soils in south Texas”
e1“Coker 227 responded more favorably to Fe stress (reduced Fe 3+ to Fe 2+ at the root) than TAM 0‐312”
Claim · model-written summary
Ca concentration was about 2,500 µg/g dry matter greater in TAM 0‐312 than in Coker 227.
- Taxon
- OatAvena sativae0
- Material
- TAM 0‐312e2
- Outcome
- Ca concentratione2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Value
- 2,500 µg/g dry mattere2
- Comparator
- Coker 227e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oat ( Arena byzantina C. Koch) cultivars developed differential Fe chlorosis symptoms when grown in field trials on alkaline soils in south Texas”
e2“the Ca concentration was consistently about 2,500 µg/g dry matter greater in TAM 0‐312 than in Coker 227”
Claim · model-written summary
P concentration was often greater in TAM 0‐312 than in Coker 227, although not consistent.
- Taxon
- OatAvena sativae0
- Material
- TAM 0‐312e3
- Outcome
- P concentratione3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Qualifier
- Although not consistente3
- Comparator
- Coker 227e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oat ( Arena byzantina C. Koch) cultivars developed differential Fe chlorosis symptoms when grown in field trials on alkaline soils in south Texas”
e3“Although not consistent, the P concentration was often greater in TAM 0‐312 than in Coker 227 which would also accentuate Fe chlorosis”
Claim · model-written summary
Ca may compete with or inactivate Fe in TAM 0‐312, causing Fe chlorosis in that cultivar.
- Taxon
- OatAvena sativae0
- Material
- TAM 0‐312e4
- Compound
- Cae4
- Outcome
- Fe chlorosise4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oat ( Arena byzantina C. Koch) cultivars developed differential Fe chlorosis symptoms when grown in field trials on alkaline soils in south Texas”
e4“We suggest that Ca effectively competes with or inactivates Fe in TAM 0‐312, thus causing Fe chlorosis to develop in this cultivar but not in Coker 227”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · nutrient: content · Avena sativa (oats)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.