Abstract
Salinity is one of the main environmental constraints to crop productivity worldwide. The aim of the experiment was to study the role of mycorrhiza (Glomus clarum Nicol. & Schenck) in tolerance of wheat genotypes to salt stress in terms of growth, physiological and biochemical parameters. Wheat genotypes (cvs. Henta, Moaya and Samma) were grown at three levels of NaCl (0.75, 1.5 and 3 g kg-1 soil) with or without mycorrhiza. The growth and physio-biochemical characteristics of all genotypes decreased with increasing levels of salinity except concentration of reducing sugars, sodium and proline, and at 3 g of NaCl, only genotype ‘Samma’ survived and showed resistant against severe salinity. However, inoculation of mycorrhiza enhanced the growth and accumulation of nutrients, reducing sugars, total soluble carbohydrates, Chlorophyll (Chl) a and Chl b, carotene, proline and protein by reducing Na. The present study suggested that inoculation of fungi was effective in improving the tolerance of wheat genotypes by improving the accumulation of nutrients and soluble solutes that might be responsible for osmotic adjustment of plant to counteract oxidative damage generated by salinity. Key words: Mycorrhiza, nutrients, osmolytes, salinity, Triticum aestivum, pigments, protein.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing salinity reduced growth and most physiological and biochemical traits in wheat genotypes.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Material
- all genotypese0
- Treatment
- increasing levels of salinitye0
- Outcome
- growth and physio-biochemical characteristicse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes”
e0“The growth and physio-biochemical characteristics of all genotypes decreased with increasing levels of salinity except concentration of reducing sugars, sodium and proline”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing sugars, sodium and proline were exceptions to the decline with increasing salinity.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- salt stresst0
- Outcome
- concentration of reducing sugars, sodium and prolinee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes to salt stress”
e0“except concentration of reducing sugars, sodium and proline”
Claim · model-written summary
Only Samma survived the highest stated salinity and resisted severe salinity.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Sammae0
- Treatment
- 3 g of NaCle0
- Outcome
- survived and showed resistant against severe salinitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes”
e0“at 3 g of NaCl, only genotype ‘Samma’ survived and showed resistant against severe salinity”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation enhanced wheat growth and nutrient accumulation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculation of mycorrhizae0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- growth and accumulation of nutrientse0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes”
e0“inoculation of mycorrhiza enhanced the growth and accumulation of nutrients”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation enhanced reducing sugars, total soluble carbohydrates and proline.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculation of mycorrhizae0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- reducing sugars, total soluble carbohydratese0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes”
e0“inoculation of mycorrhiza enhanced the growth and accumulation of nutrients, reducing sugars, total soluble carbohydrates, Chlorophyll (Chl) a and Chl b, carotene, proline and protein by reducing Na”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation enhanced chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotene.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculation of mycorrhizae0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll (Chl) a and Chl b, carotenee0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes”
e0“inoculation of mycorrhiza enhanced the growth and accumulation of nutrients, reducing sugars, total soluble carbohydrates, Chlorophyll (Chl) a and Chl b, carotene, proline and protein by reducing Na”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation enhanced wheat protein and reduced sodium.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculation of mycorrhizae0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- proteine0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat genotypes”
e0“inoculation of mycorrhiza enhanced the growth and accumulation of nutrients, reducing sugars, total soluble carbohydrates, Chlorophyll (Chl) a and Chl b, carotene, proline and protein by reducing Na”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation reduced sodium in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal fungit0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizal fungit0symbiont
- Outcome
- Nae0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“mycorrhizal fungi in tolerance of wheat genotypes”
e0“by reducing Na”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →mycorrhiza · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →inoculation · quality: sugar starch · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →inoculation · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →mycorrhiza · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
76 papers more in this group
See all 80 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
75 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →salinity · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
327 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
373 papers more in this group
See all 377 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.