Abstract
High temperature and drought stress are among the two most important environmental factors influencing crop growth, development and yield processes. These two stresses commonly occur in combination. Objectives of this research were to investigate the independent and combined effects of high temperature and drought stress during grain filling on physiological, vegetative and yield traits and expression of a chloroplast protein synthesis elongation factor (EF-Tu) of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Two spring wheat cultivars (Pavon-76 and Seri-82) were grown at control temperatures (CT; day/night, 24/14 °C; 16/8 h photo/dark period) from sowing to heading. Thereafter, one half of the plants were exposed to high temperature stress (HT; 31/18 °C in Exp. 1 and 34/22 °C in Exp. 2), drought stress (withholding water), or a combination of both HT and drought stress. There were significant influences of HT and/or drought stress on physiological, growth and yield traits. There was no cultivar or cultivar by temperature or cultivar by drought interaction effects on most traits. The decreases in leaf photosynthesis were greater at HT compared with drought alone throughout the stress period, and the combination of HT and drought had the lowest leaf photosynthetic rates. Overall, HT or drought had similar effects (about 48–56 % decrease) on spikelet fertility, grain numbers and grain yield. High temperature decreased grain numbers (by 56 % averaged across both experiments) and individual grain weight (by 25 %), while, respective decreases due to drought were 48 % and 35 %. This suggests that the grain numbers were more sensitive to HT and grain weights to drought for the range of temperatures tested in this research. The interaction between HT and drought stress was significant for total dry weights, harvest index and spikelet fertility, particularly when HT stress was severe (34/22 °C). The combined effects of HT and drought were greater than additive effects of HT or drought alone for leaf chlorophyll content, grain numbers and harvest index. High temperature stress and the combination of HT and drought stress but not drought stress alone resulted in the overexpression of EF-Tu in both spring wheat cultivars.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Heat and drought significantly influenced physiological, growth and yield traits.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- HT and/or drought stresse0
- Outcome
- physiological, growth and yield traitse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant influences of HT and/or drought stress on physiological, growth and yield traits.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Most traits showed no cultivar or cultivar by stress interactions.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Outcome
- most traitse0
- Direction
- noe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no cultivar or cultivar by temperature or cultivar by drought interaction effects on most traits.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat reduced photosynthesis more than drought alone.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HTe0
- Outcome
- leaf photosynthesise0
- Direction
- decreasese0
- Comparator
- drought alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The decreases in leaf photosynthesis were greater at HT compared with drought alone throughout the stress period”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined heat and drought gave the lowest leaf photosynthetic rate.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- combination of HT and droughte0
- Outcome
- leaf photosynthetic ratese0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination of HT and drought had the lowest leaf photosynthetic rates.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat or drought reduced spikelet fertility by about 48 to 56 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT or droughte0
- Outcome
- spikelet fertilitye0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- about 48–56 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HT or drought had similar effects (about 48–56 % decrease) on spikelet fertility, grain numbers and grain yield.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat or drought reduced grain numbers by about 48 to 56 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT or droughte0
- Outcome
- grain numberse0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- about 48–56 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HT or drought had similar effects (about 48–56 % decrease) on spikelet fertility, grain numbers and grain yield.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat or drought reduced grain yield by about 48 to 56 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT or droughte0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- about 48–56 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HT or drought had similar effects (about 48–56 % decrease) on spikelet fertility, grain numbers and grain yield.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat reduced grain number by 56 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- High temperaturee0
- Outcome
- grain numberse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 56 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High temperature decreased grain numbers (by 56 % averaged across both experiments) and individual grain weight (by 25 %)”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat reduced individual grain weight by 25 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- High temperaturee0
- Outcome
- individual grain weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 25 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High temperature decreased grain numbers (by 56 % averaged across both experiments) and individual grain weight (by 25 %)”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced grain number by 48 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- droughte0
- Outcome
- grain numberse1
- Direction
- decreasese0
- Value
- 48 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“respective decreases due to drought were 48 % and 35 %.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
e1“High temperature decreased grain numbers (by 56 % averaged across both experiments) and individual grain weight (by 25 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced individual grain weight by 35 percent.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- droughte0
- Outcome
- individual grain weighte1
- Direction
- decreasese0
- Value
- 35 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“respective decreases due to drought were 48 % and 35 %.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
e1“High temperature decreased grain numbers (by 56 % averaged across both experiments) and individual grain weight (by 25 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat and drought significantly interacted for total dry weight.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT and drought stresse0
- Outcome
- total dry weightse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The interaction between HT and drought stress was significant for total dry weights, harvest index and spikelet fertility, particularly when HT stress was severe (34/22 °C).”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat and drought significantly interacted for harvest index.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT and drought stresse0
- Outcome
- harvest indexe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The interaction between HT and drought stress was significant for total dry weights, harvest index and spikelet fertility, particularly when HT stress was severe (34/22 °C).”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat and drought significantly interacted for spikelet fertility.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT and drought stresse0
- Outcome
- spikelet fertilitye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The interaction between HT and drought stress was significant for total dry weights, harvest index and spikelet fertility, particularly when HT stress was severe (34/22 °C).”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined stress had greater than additive effects on chlorophyll content.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT and droughte0
- Outcome
- leaf chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- greater than additivee0
- Comparator
- HT or drought alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combined effects of HT and drought were greater than additive effects of HT or drought alone for leaf chlorophyll content, grain numbers and harvest index.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined stress had greater than additive effects on grain numbers.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT and droughte0
- Outcome
- grain numberse0
- Direction
- greater than additivee0
- Comparator
- HT or drought alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combined effects of HT and drought were greater than additive effects of HT or drought alone for leaf chlorophyll content, grain numbers and harvest index.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined stress had greater than additive effects on harvest index.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- HT and droughte0
- Outcome
- harvest indexe0
- Direction
- greater than additivee0
- Comparator
- HT or drought alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combined effects of HT and drought were greater than additive effects of HT or drought alone for leaf chlorophyll content, grain numbers and harvest index.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat increased EF-Tu expression in both cultivars.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- High temperature stresse0
- Gene
- EF-Tue0
- Outcome
- overexpression of EF-Tue0
- Direction
- overexpressione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High temperature stress and the combination of HT and drought stress but not drought stress alone resulted in the overexpression of EF-Tu in both spring wheat cultivars.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined heat and drought increased EF-Tu expression in both cultivars.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- combination of HT and drought stresse0
- Gene
- EF-Tue0
- Outcome
- overexpression of EF-Tue0
- Direction
- overexpressione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High temperature stress and the combination of HT and drought stress but not drought stress alone resulted in the overexpression of EF-Tu in both spring wheat cultivars.”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought alone did not overexpress EF-Tu.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- drought stress alonee0
- Gene
- EF-Tue0
- Outcome
- overexpression of EF-Tue0
- Direction
- note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but not drought stress alone resulted in the overexpression of EF-Tu in both spring wheat cultivars.”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
204 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
242 papers more in this group
See all 246 papers →heat · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
254 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
305 papers more in this group
See all 309 papers →drought · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
536 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
628 papers more in this group
See all 632 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.