Abstract
Abstract Sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) is one of the important crops grown under the residual soil moisture situation during the post‐rainy (rabi) season in India. Field studies were conducted at the ICRISAT center on deep vertisols on the effects of water stress on the growth and dry matter accumulation of sorghum. Leaf water Potential and stomatal conductance were measured diurnally on four dates during the growing season. Irrigated sorghum crop exhibited higher stomatal conductance and higher leaf water potentials as compared to the nonirrigated sorghum. Higher transpiration rates observed in the case of the irrigated sorghum could be explained by the increased net radiation measured over the irrigated canopy. Lower leaves in the sorghum canopy showed lower stomatal conductance. Irrigated sorghum plants showed higher leaf area index and greater dry matter accumulation than those of the nonirrigated sorghum plants. There were significant differences in the final yield between the two treatments as reflected by less teritiary brancheslsecondaries, lower seed number/panicle and smaller seed size in the case of the nonirrigated sorghum. On a seasonal basis, the nonirrigated sorghum crop used 213 mm of water to produce 0.51 kg m ‐2 of dry matter, whereas the irrigated sorghum extracted 321 mm of water to produce 0.93 kg m ‐2 of dry matter.
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
Irrigated sorghum had higher stomatal conductance than nonirrigated sorghum.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated sorghum crop exhibited higher stomatal conductance and higher leaf water potentials as compared to the nonirrigated sorghum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated sorghum had higher leaf water potential than nonirrigated sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated sorghum crop exhibited higher stomatal conductance and higher leaf water potentials as compared to the nonirrigated sorghum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated sorghum had higher transpiration rates.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher transpiration rates observed in the case of the irrigated sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased net radiation over irrigated sorghum canopy explained higher transpiration.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher transpiration rates observed in the case of the irrigated sorghum could be explained by the increased net radiation measured over the irrigated canopy.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower sorghum canopy leaves had lower stomatal conductance.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lower leaves in the sorghum canopy showed lower stomatal conductance.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated sorghum had higher leaf area index and dry matter accumulation than nonirrigated sorghum.
- Treatment
- Irrigatede0
- Outcome
- leaf area index and greater dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- nonirrigated sorghum plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigated sorghum plants showed higher leaf area index and greater dry matter accumulation than those of the nonirrigated sorghum plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Final yield differed significantly between irrigated and nonirrigated sorghum.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant differences in the final yield between the two treatments”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated sorghum had fewer tertiary branches per secondary branch.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“less teritiary brancheslsecondaries, lower seed number/panicle and smaller seed size in the case of the nonirrigated sorghum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated sorghum had lower seed number per panicle.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“less teritiary brancheslsecondaries, lower seed number/panicle and smaller seed size in the case of the nonirrigated sorghum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated sorghum had smaller seeds.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“less teritiary brancheslsecondaries, lower seed number/panicle and smaller seed size in the case of the nonirrigated sorghum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated sorghum used 213 mm water to produce 0.51 kg m ‐2 dry matter.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the nonirrigated sorghum crop used 213 mm of water to produce 0.51 kg m ‐2 of dry matter”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated sorghum extracted 321 mm water to produce 0.93 kg m ‐2 dry matter.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the irrigated sorghum extracted 321 mm of water to produce 0.93 kg m ‐2 of dry matter.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
irrigation · physiology: water · SorghumPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →irrigation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
93 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 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.