Abstract
When crops are exposed to drought there is commonly an increase in solute-pool of the plant tissue. A series of experiments were conducted in 1994 and 1995 in the University of Hohenheim, Germany, to evaluate whether drought-induced solute accumulation per se will improve drought resistance, to determine the species of active osmotica involved, and to identify alternative mechanisms in grain legumes, namely Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) faba bean (Vicia faba), pea (Pisum sativum), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively. Higher yield of chickpea and common bean under drought was augumented by turgor maintenance. The highest degree of turgor (1.0 MPa) was in common bean, though it had the lowest solute accumulation. Thus, a decrease in osmotic potential was not the only strategy of turgor maintenance in legumes. Increase in solute pool in all was due to concentration effect as a result of water loss and growth inhibition, except in chickpea. The major osmotica in chickpea were of organic origin, namely sugars and sugar alcohols contributing more than 50%, and amino compounds 20% of the osmotic pool. Calcium was the only inorganic osmoticum contributing 19% of the pool. Concentration of solutes in the cell-sap did not necessarily indicate the level of contribution to the osmotic pool, as the most abundant ions (e.g., potassium) did not contribute to osmotic adjustment under drought. It was concluded that it is vital to differentiate solutes accumulated as a concentration effect from active osmotica using cell water volume of control plants before considering solute concentration as a selection criterion for breeding drought resistant varieties/crops. Key words/phrases: Active osmotica, concentration effect, drought, grain legumes SINET: Ethiop. J. Sci Vol.26(1) 2003: 37-46
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced faba bean dry matter yield by 36.4%.
- Taxon
- faba bean
Vicia fabae0 - Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 36.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced pea dry matter yield by 23.9%.
- Taxon
- pea
Lathyrus oleraceuse0 - Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 23.9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced common bean dry matter yield by 17.6%.
- Taxon
- common bean
Phaseolus vulgarise0 - Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 17.6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced chickpea dry matter yield by 14.5%.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 14.5%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased faba bean leaf water potential to -1.67 MPa.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabae0
- Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -1.67e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased pea leaf water potential to -1.83 MPa.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse0
- Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -1.83e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased common bean leaf water potential to -0.34 MPa.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -0.34e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought decreased chickpea leaf water potential to -1.32 MPa.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -1.32e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought, equivalent to soil water potential of -0.64 MPa, decreased the leaf water potential to -1.67, -1.83, -0.34 and -1.32 MPa and resulted in dry matter yield reduction of 36.4%, 23.9%, 17.6% and 14.5% in faba bean, pea, common bean, and chickpea, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Turgor maintenance augmented chickpea and common bean yield under drought.
- Taxon
- chickpea and common beanCicer arietinumPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- Higher yielde0
- Qualifier
- turgor maintenancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher yield of chickpea and common bean under drought was augumented by turgor maintenance”
Claim · model-written summary
Common bean had the highest turgor, 1.0 MPa, despite the lowest solute accumulation.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- turgore0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.0 MPae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest degree of turgor (1.0 MPa) was in common bean, though it had the lowest solute accumulation”
Claim · model-written summary
In most legumes, increased solute pool reflected concentration from water loss and growth inhibition.
Verbatim
e0“Increase in solute pool in all was due to concentration effect as a result of water loss and growth inhibition, except in chickpea”
t0“grain legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea sugars and sugar alcohols contributed more than 50% of the osmotic pool.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- sugars and sugar alcohols contributinge0
- Value
- more than 50%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The major osmotica in chickpea were of organic origin, namely sugars and sugar alcohols contributing more than 50%, and amino compounds 20% of the osmotic pool”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea amino compounds contributed 20% of the osmotic pool.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- amino compoundse0
- Value
- 20%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The major osmotica in chickpea were of organic origin, namely sugars and sugar alcohols contributing more than 50%, and amino compounds 20% of the osmotic pool”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium contributed 19% of the osmotic pool.
Verbatim
t0“grain legumes”
e0“Calcium was the only inorganic osmoticum contributing 19% of the pool”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium did not contribute to osmotic adjustment under drought.
Verbatim
t0“grain legumes”
e0“the most abundant ions (e.g., potassium) did not contribute to osmotic adjustment under drought”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend distinguishing concentration effects from active osmotica before selecting for drought resistance.
Verbatim
t0“grain legumes”
e0“it is vital to differentiate solutes accumulated as a concentration effect from active osmotica using cell water volume of control plants before considering solute concentration as a selection criterion for breeding drought resistant varieties/crops”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →drought · yield · Vicia faba (faba bean)Results differ
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →drought · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →drought · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 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.