Paper · 2007 · Zhongguo nongye Kexue

Gray Relational Grade Analysis of Agronomical and Physi-Biochemical Traits Related to Drought Tolerance in Wheat

Meng Fan-lei

20
claims
38
verbatim quotes
10
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

【Objective】This paper aims at probing the relationship between agronomical traits, physi-biochemical traits and drought tolerance of wheat cultivars. 【Method】 A total of 12 traits, including 5 agronomical traits and 7 physi-biochemical traits that measured in 65 wheat cultivars grown at drought shelter and no-irrigation conditions, were analyzed using gray relational grade analysis method. 【Result】 Gray correlation degrees facilitated in identifying the drought tolerance of wheat. They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866). And the cluster based on the weighted drought-tolerance index of cultivars could well represent their bred and applied areas. Cultivars that had the strongest drought tolerance among the 65 cultivars were Luohan 6, Xiaoyan 6, Jinmai 47, Shanmai 168 etc. 【Conclusion】 It was concluded that the physi-biochemical traits related to leaf stomatal had the closest relationship with the drought tolerance of wheat, and these traits were significantly influenced by water stress, thus had the greatest relation degree with drought-tolerance index. So the physi-biochemical traits including stomata conductance, photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate could be used in the trait-based selection of drought tolerance to improve the selection efficiency.

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

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gray correlation degrees helped identify wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
identifying the drought tolerancee0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Gray correlation degrees facilitated in identifying the drought tolerance of wheat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 402–485 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

stomatal conductance had gray correlation degree 0.7995 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
stomatal conductancee0
Value
0.7995e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

photosynthetic rate had gray correlation degree 0.7909 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
photosynthetic ratee0
Value
0.7909e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

transpiration rate had gray correlation degree 0.7556 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
transpiration ratee0
Value
0.7556e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

soluble sugar content had gray correlation degree 0.7467 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
soluble sugar contente0
Value
0.7467e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

MDA content had gray correlation degree 0.7336 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
MDA contente0
Value
0.7336e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

dissociative proline content had gray correlation degree 0.7267 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
dissociative proline contente0
Value
0.7267e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

spike length had gray correlation degree 0.7102 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
spike lengthe0
Value
0.7102e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

number of kernel per spike had gray correlation degree 0.7095 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
number of kernel per spikee0
Value
0.7095e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

1000-kernel weight had gray correlation degree 0.7005 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
1000-kernel weighte0
Value
0.7005e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

water potential had gray correlation degree 0.6959 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
water potentiale0
Value
0.6959e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

effective tiller number had gray correlation degree 0.6951 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
effective tiller numbere0
Value
0.6951e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

plant height had gray correlation degree 0.6866 with wheat drought tolerance

Outcome
plant heighte0
Value
0.6866e0
Comparator
drought tolerance indexe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“They were calculated between each trait and its drought tolerance index and were ranked according to their gray correlation degree to drought tolerance as follows: stomatal conductance (0.7995), photosynthetic rate (0.7909), transpiration rate (0.7556), soluble sugar content (0.7467), MDA content (0.7336), dissociative proline content (0.7267), spike length (0.7102), number of kernel per spike (0.7095), 1000-kernel weight (0.7005), water potential (0.6959), effective tiller number (0.6951), plant height (0.6866).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 486–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Clustering by weighted drought tolerance index represented cultivar breeding and application areas

Outcome
represent their bred and applied arease0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“And the cluster based on the weighted drought-tolerance index of cultivars could well represent their bred and applied areas.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1130 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Luohan 6 was among the strongest drought tolerant wheat cultivars

Material
Luohan 6e0
Outcome
drought tolerancee0
Direction
strongeste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars that had the strongest drought tolerance among the 65 cultivars were Luohan 6, Xiaoyan 6, Jinmai 47, Shanmai 168 etc.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1258 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Xiaoyan 6 was among the strongest drought tolerant wheat cultivars

Material
Xiaoyan 6e0
Outcome
drought tolerancee0
Direction
strongeste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars that had the strongest drought tolerance among the 65 cultivars were Luohan 6, Xiaoyan 6, Jinmai 47, Shanmai 168 etc.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1258 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Jinmai 47 was among the strongest drought tolerant wheat cultivars

Material
Jinmai 47e0
Outcome
drought tolerancee0
Direction
strongeste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars that had the strongest drought tolerance among the 65 cultivars were Luohan 6, Xiaoyan 6, Jinmai 47, Shanmai 168 etc.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1258 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shanmai 168 was among the strongest drought tolerant wheat cultivars

Material
Shanmai 168e0
Outcome
drought tolerancee0
Direction
strongeste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars that had the strongest drought tolerance among the 65 cultivars were Luohan 6, Xiaoyan 6, Jinmai 47, Shanmai 168 etc.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1258 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Stomatal physiological traits had the closest relationship with wheat drought tolerance

Organ / stage
leaf stomatale0
Outcome
drought tolerancee0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“It was concluded that the physi-biochemical traits related to leaf stomatal had the closest relationship with the drought tolerance of wheat, and these traits were significantly influenced by water stress, thus had the greatest relation degree with drought-tolerance index.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1545 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Stomatal conductance, photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate could guide drought tolerance selection

Outcome
trait-based selection of drought tolerancee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“So the physi-biochemical traits including stomata conductance, photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate could be used in the trait-based selection of drought tolerance to improve the selection efficiency.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1546–1752 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–112 · show in text ↑