Abstract
Our objective was to investigate the responses of maize photosynthesis and growth to repeated drought. Methods Maize seedlings were exposed to different soil water deficit for three weeks, then rewatering for one week, and again to different water deficit for three weeks, to examine the effects of repeated drought on photosynthesis and growth. Important findings After the first water deficit treatments, under severe drought, plant height, total leaf area of individual plant, shoot and root biomass declined significantly, also transpiration rate (T r ), stomatal conductance (G s ), intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ), net photosynthetic rate (P n ), maximum net photosynthetic rate (A max ), but light compensation point and dark respiration rate increased significantly. Under medium drought, plant height, leaf area, and shoot biomass decreased significantly, but root biomass did not vary, hence, the ratio of roots to shoots (R/S) increased. Moreover, plants did not show significant differences in photosynthetic parameters. After rewatering, photosynthesis and growth rate of plants previously exposed to water deficit could recover to the levels of well-watered plants, but plant height and leaf area did not recover to the levels of the control. When maize were subjected to recurrent drought, plants pre-exposed to medium drought showed no significant difference in plant height, biomass, and photosynthetic parameters, but a significant decrease in leaf area, compared to plants only exposed to second medium drought. Plants pre-exposed to severe drought had significantly higher T r , G s , C i , P n , A max , and, apparent quantum yield but significantly lower plant height, leaf area, and biomass than plants without previous exposure. These results indicated that the first severe drought significantly reduced Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology : -- 595
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
Severe first drought significantly reduced height, leaf area, and shoot and root biomass.
- Treatment
- severe droughte0
- Outcome
- plant height, total leaf area of individual plant, shoot and root biomasse0
- Direction
- declinede0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under severe drought, plant height, total leaf area of individual plant, shoot and root biomass declined significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe first drought significantly reduced transpiration, stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2.
- Outcome
- transpiration rate (T r ), stomatal conductance (G s ), intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i )e0
- Direction
- declinede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“declined significantly, also transpiration rate (T r ), stomatal conductance (G s ), intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ), net photosynthetic rate (P n ), maximum net photosynthetic rate (A max ), but light compensation point and dark respiration rate increased significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe first drought significantly reduced net and maximum net photosynthetic rates.
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic rate (P n ), maximum net photosynthetic rate (A max )e0
- Direction
- declinede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“declined significantly, also transpiration rate (T r ), stomatal conductance (G s ), intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ), net photosynthetic rate (P n ), maximum net photosynthetic rate (A max ), but light compensation point and dark respiration rate increased significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe first drought significantly increased light compensation point and dark respiration.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“light compensation point and dark respiration rate increased significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium drought significantly reduced height, leaf area and shoot biomass.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under medium drought, plant height, leaf area, and shoot biomass decreased significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root biomass did not vary under medium drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but root biomass did not vary, hence, the ratio of roots to shoots (R/S) increased.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The root to shoot ratio increased under medium drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the ratio of roots to shoots (R/S) increased.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic parameters showed no significant differences under medium drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants did not show significant differences in photosynthetic parameters.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After rewatering, photosynthesis and growth rate recovered to well watered levels.
- Treatment
- rewateringe0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis and growth ratee0
- Direction
- recovere0
- Comparator
- well-watered plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After rewatering, photosynthesis and growth rate of plants previously exposed to water deficit could recover to the levels of well-watered plants”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After rewatering, height and leaf area remained below control levels.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but plant height and leaf area did not recover to the levels of the control.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With recurrent medium drought, prior medium drought did not significantly change height or biomass.
- Outcome
- plant height, biomasse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- plants only exposed to second medium droughte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants pre-exposed to medium drought showed no significant difference in plant height, biomass, and photosynthetic parameters, but a significant decrease in leaf area, compared to plants only exposed to second medium drought.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With recurrent medium drought, prior medium drought did not significantly change photosynthetic parameters.
- Outcome
- photosynthetic parameterse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- plants only exposed to second medium droughte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants pre-exposed to medium drought showed no significant difference in plant height, biomass, and photosynthetic parameters, but a significant decrease in leaf area, compared to plants only exposed to second medium drought.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With recurrent medium drought, prior medium drought significantly decreased leaf area.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants pre-exposed to medium drought showed no significant difference in plant height, biomass, and photosynthetic parameters, but a significant decrease in leaf area, compared to plants only exposed to second medium drought.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With recurrent drought, prior severe drought increased transpiration, stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants pre-exposed to severe drought had significantly higher T r , G s , C i , P n , A max , and, apparent quantum yield but significantly lower plant height, leaf area, and biomass than plants without previous exposure.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With recurrent drought, prior severe drought increased net photosynthesis, maximum photosynthesis and apparent quantum yield.
- Outcome
- P n , A max , and, apparent quantum yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- plants without previous exposuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants pre-exposed to severe drought had significantly higher T r , G s , C i , P n , A max , and, apparent quantum yield but significantly lower plant height, leaf area, and biomass than plants without previous exposure.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With recurrent drought, prior severe drought decreased height, leaf area and biomass.
- Outcome
- plant height, leaf area, and biomasse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- plants without previous exposuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants pre-exposed to severe drought had significantly higher T r , G s , C i , P n , A max , and, apparent quantum yield but significantly lower plant height, leaf area, and biomass than plants without previous exposure.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
rewatering · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →in vitro · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
83 papers more in this group
See all 87 papers →drought · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
307 papers in the same direction as this paper · 77 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
381 papers more in this group
See all 385 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.