Abstract
SummaryThe effects of drought on several major morphological and anatomical features of leaves were investigated in an attempt to explain the origin of the difference in drought resistance between two olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars, (‘Chemlali’ and ‘Meski’) previously demonstrated to be drought-resistant and drought-sensitive, respectively. Under water deficit conditions, ‘Chemlali’ maintained higher rates of photosynthetic assimilation and lower rates of transpiration compared to ‘Meski’. In the present study, we found cultivar-dependent differences in leaf morpho-anatomical adaptations to drought stress. When subjected to water stress, the leaves of‘Chemlali’ increased the thickness of their upper palisade and spongy parenchyma by 17% and 22%, respectively, compared with only 9% and 13% in the case of ‘Meski’. A thicker palisade parenchyma could contain larger numbers of CO2-fixation sites, while a thicker spongy parenchyma could result in easier diffusion of CO2 to these sites. Furthermore, stomatal density (SD) in ‘Chemlali’ leaves increased by 25%(vs. 7% for ‘Meski’ leaves) during drought treatment, which could also enhance the external supply of CO2. Other morpho-structural traits implicated in the control of water loss were enhanced morein ‘Chemlali’ than in ‘Meski’ leaves. Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’), trichome density (TD) increased by 25% (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’), and the thickness of the upper and lower epidermis increased by 32% and 25%, respectively (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’). The above morpho-anatomical adaptations should improve the water-use efficiency of the tree. These differential changes in leaf morphology and anatomy can explain, at least in part, the difference in drought resistance between the two cultivars. In particular, the upper palisade parenchyma, the spongy parenchyma, SD, and TD could be considered key structural features of leaves that govern the ability of a tree to withstand water stress. They could therefore be used as criteria to select olive cultivars that are more resistant to drought.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Under water deficit, Chemlali maintained higher photosynthetic assimilation than Meski.
- Taxon
- olive
Olea europaeat0 - Material
- ‘Chemlali’e0
- Treatment
- water deficit conditionse0
- Outcome
- rates of photosynthetic assimilatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under water deficit conditions, ‘Chemlali’ maintained higher rates of photosynthetic assimilation and lower rates of transpiration compared to ‘Meski’.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Under water deficit, Chemlali maintained lower transpiration than Meski.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’e0
- Treatment
- water deficit conditionse0
- Outcome
- rates of transpiratione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under water deficit conditions, ‘Chemlali’ maintained higher rates of photosynthetic assimilation and lower rates of transpiration compared to ‘Meski’.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
With water stress, Chemlali upper palisade thickness increased 17%.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’e0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- thickness of their upper palisadee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When subjected to water stress, the leaves of‘Chemlali’ increased the thickness of their upper palisade and spongy parenchyma by 17% and 22%, respectively, compared with only 9% and 13% in the case of ‘Meski’.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
With water stress, Chemlali spongy parenchyma thickness increased 22%.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’e0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- spongy parenchymae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When subjected to water stress, the leaves of‘Chemlali’ increased the thickness of their upper palisade and spongy parenchyma by 17% and 22%, respectively, compared with only 9% and 13% in the case of ‘Meski’.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
With water stress, Meski upper palisade thickness increased 9%.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Meski’e0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- thickness of their upper palisadee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 9%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Chemlali’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When subjected to water stress, the leaves of‘Chemlali’ increased the thickness of their upper palisade and spongy parenchyma by 17% and 22%, respectively, compared with only 9% and 13% in the case of ‘Meski’.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
With water stress, Meski spongy parenchyma thickness increased 13%.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Meski’e0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- spongy parenchymae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Chemlali’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When subjected to water stress, the leaves of‘Chemlali’ increased the thickness of their upper palisade and spongy parenchyma by 17% and 22%, respectively, compared with only 9% and 13% in the case of ‘Meski’.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemlali stomatal density increased 25% during drought.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’e0
- Treatment
- drought treatmente0
- Outcome
- stomatal density (SD)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stomatal density (SD) in ‘Chemlali’ leaves increased by 25%(vs. 7% for ‘Meski’ leaves) during drought treatment”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Meski stomatal density increased 7% during drought.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Meski’e0
- Treatment
- drought treatmente0
- Outcome
- stomatal density (SD)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Chemlali’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stomatal density (SD) in ‘Chemlali’ leaves increased by 25%(vs. 7% for ‘Meski’ leaves) during drought treatment”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemlali leaf size decreased 24% under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’e0
- Treatment
- lower water availabilitye0
- Outcome
- leaf sizee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Meski leaf size decreased 15% under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Meski’e0
- Treatment
- lower water availabilitye0
- Outcome
- leaf sizee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 15%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Chemlali’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemlali trichome density increased 25% under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’t1
- Treatment
- lower water availabilityt1
- Outcome
- trichome density (TD)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“trichome density (TD) increased by 25% (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’)”
t0“olive”
t1“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Meski trichome density remained unchanged under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Meski’e0
- Treatment
- lower water availabilityt1
- Outcome
- trichome density (TD)e0
- Direction
- unchangede0
- Comparator
- ‘Chemlali’t1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“trichome density (TD) increased by 25% (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’)”
t0“olive”
t1“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemlali upper epidermis thickness increased 32% under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’t1
- Treatment
- lower water availabilityt1
- Outcome
- thickness of the uppere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 32%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the thickness of the upper and lower epidermis increased by 32% and 25%, respectively (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’).”
t0“olive”
t1“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemlali lower epidermis thickness increased 25% under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Chemlali’t1
- Treatment
- lower water availabilityt1
- Outcome
- lower epidermise0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Comparator
- ‘Meski’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the thickness of the upper and lower epidermis increased by 32% and 25%, respectively (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’).”
t0“olive”
t1“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
Claim · model-written summary
Meski epidermis thickness remained unchanged under lower water availability.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- ‘Meski’e0
- Treatment
- lower water availabilityt1
- Outcome
- thickness of the upper and lower epidermise0
- Direction
- unchangede0
- Comparator
- ‘Chemlali’t1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the thickness of the upper and lower epidermis increased by 32% and 25%, respectively (while remaining unchanged in ‘Meski’).”
t0“olive”
t1“Under conditions of lower water availability, leaf size decreased by 24% in ‘Chemlali’ (vs. 15% in ‘Meski’)”
Claim · model-written summary
The leaf anatomy changes were proposed to improve tree water-use efficiency.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvee0
- Qualifier
- morpho-anatomical adaptationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The above morpho-anatomical adaptations should improve the water-use efficiency of the tree.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors proposed upper palisade, spongy parenchyma, stomatal density and trichome density as selection criteria for drought-resistant olive.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae0
- Outcome
- criteria to select olive cultivars that are more resistant to droughte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“They could therefore be used as criteria to select olive cultivars that are more resistant to drought.”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: gas exchange · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.