Abstract
The experiment compared the relative tolerance of some advanced lines and a variety of lentil viz. BD3859, BD3905, BD3867, ILL5087, ILL5133 and BINAmasur1 (variety) to soil flooding. The growth rates of the genotypes considerably reduced when flooding imposed at vegetative stage. However, the genotypes responded differently to flooding onward during recovery period. Leaf and roots showed highly vulnerable to flooding. Flooding promoted extensive leaf senescence and desiccation. Flooding induced damaging of root system was highly striking, despite there existed remarkable recoveries in some genotypes. The adverse effect of flooding was less pronounced on stem than other plant components. However, shoot growth reduction was 76-86% relative to control. Relative growth rate (RGR) of most plant components showed negative rate during flooding, but it varied from negative to positive during recovery period. Considering total plant biomass, flooding tolerance (FT) indices indicated that BINAmasur1 and BD3859 had comparatively better degree of tolerance to excess water. In contrast, ILL5133 and ILL5087 were susceptible to flooding for having negative FT indices.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pa.v18i2.17460 Progress. Agric. 18(2): 17 - 24, 2007
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding considerably reduced genotype growth rates.
- Taxon
- lentil
Lens culinarist0 - Organ / stage
- vegetative stagee0
- Treatment
- floodinge0
- Outcome
- growth ratese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growth rates of the genotypes considerably reduced when flooding imposed at vegetative stage”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes differed in their recovery responses after flooding.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- responded differently to floodinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the genotypes responded differently to flooding onward during recovery period”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding promoted leaf senescence and desiccation.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- Floodinge0
- Outcome
- leaf senescence and desiccatione0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flooding promoted extensive leaf senescence and desiccation”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding damaged the root system, though some genotypes recovered.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- Floodinge0
- Outcome
- damaging of root systeme0
- Direction
- damaginge0
- Qualifier
- remarkable recoveries in some genotypese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flooding induced damaging of root system was highly striking, despite there existed remarkable recoveries in some genotypes”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding affected stems less than other components.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Organ / stage
- steme0
- Outcome
- adverse effect of floodinge0
- Direction
- less pronouncede0
- Comparator
- other plant componentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The adverse effect of flooding was less pronounced on stem than other plant components”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot growth was reduced 76-86% versus control.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- shoot growthe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 76-86%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shoot growth reduction was 76-86% relative to control”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative growth rates were negative during flooding and ranged negative to positive in recovery.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- Relative growth rate (RGR)e0
- Direction
- negative ratee0
- Qualifier
- varied from negative to positive during recovery periode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative growth rate (RGR) of most plant components showed negative rate during flooding, but it varied from negative to positive during recovery period”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
BINAmasur1 and BD3859 were comparatively more flooding-tolerant.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- degree of tolerance to excess watere0
- Direction
- bettere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BINAmasur1 and BD3859 had comparatively better degree of tolerance to excess water”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
ILL5133 and ILL5087 were flooding-susceptible with negative tolerance indices.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- susceptible to floodinge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ILL5133 and ILL5087 were susceptible to flooding for having negative FT indices”
t0“Lentil”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.