Abstract
The objective of this research was to evaluate the biochemical changes in leaves from different genotypes of J. curcas in order to extend knowledge regarding the mechanisms of tolerance to water deficit and its variation in different genotypes. Potted plants of three genotypes (CNPAE 126, 137 and 139) were cultivated under water deficit conditions for 66 days. Two watering regimes, as measured by the percentage of field capacity (FC), were imposed: Control plants (100% FC) and plants submitted to water deficit (70% FC). After 66 days, no significant effects of treatment and of genotype on leaf water potential (Ψw) were observed. While the water deficit treatment led to significant increments in foliar concentrations of proline and soluble sugars in all genotypes, no significant effects of genotype or treatment on K+ concentration were detected. In addition, significant differences among treatments and genotypes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes (SOD, CAT and POD) and [ABA] in leaf and root were demonstrated. The genotypes exhibited an effective mechanism of response against the effects of water deficit, involving accumulation of compatible osmolytes, and increased antioxidants enzymes and ABA. Taken together, that results configure a strategy for maintenance of leaf hydration under moderate water deficit. Key words: Abiotic stress, antioxidant enzymes, compatible osmolytes, Euphorbiaceae, gas exchange.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit and genotype had no significant effect on leaf water potential of Jatropha curcas seedlings.
- Taxon
- Jatropha curcas L.
_tree_at_Samedha.jpg?width=60)
Jatropha curcast0 - Material
- CNPAE 126, 137 and 139e0
- Treatment
- water deficit (70% FC)e2
- Outcome
- leaf water potential (Ψw)e1
- Direction
- no significant effectse1
- Comparator
- Control plantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_tree_at_Samedha.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Jatropha curcas L.”
e0“Potted plants of three genotypes (CNPAE 126, 137 and 139)”
e1“no significant effects of treatment and of genotype on leaf water potential (Ψw) were observed”
e2“Control plants (100% FC) and plants submitted to water deficit (70% FC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit significantly increased foliar proline and soluble sugar concentrations in all genotypes.
- Taxon
- Jatropha curcas L.Jatropha curcast0
- Treatment
- water deficit treatmente3
- Outcome
- foliar concentrations of proline and soluble sugarse3
- Direction
- incrementse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Jatropha curcas L.”
e3“water deficit treatment led to significant increments in foliar concentrations of proline and soluble sugars in all genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit and genotype had no significant effect on K+ concentration in Jatropha curcas leaves.
- Taxon
- Jatropha curcas L.Jatropha curcast0
- Treatment
- water deficite2
- Outcome
- K+ concentratione4
- Direction
- no significant effectse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Jatropha curcas L.”
e2“Control plants (100% FC) and plants submitted to water deficit (70% FC)”
e4“no significant effects of genotype or treatment on K+ concentration were detected”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit and genotype caused significant differences in the activity of antioxidant enzymes SOD, CAT and POD.
- Taxon
- Jatropha curcas L.Jatropha curcast0
- Treatment
- water deficite2
- Outcome
- activity of antioxidant enzymese5
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Jatropha curcas L.”
e2“Control plants (100% FC) and plants submitted to water deficit (70% FC)”
e5“significant differences among treatments and genotypes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes (SOD, CAT and POD)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit and genotype caused significant differences in ABA concentration in leaves and roots of Jatropha curcas.
- Taxon
- Jatropha curcas L.Jatropha curcast0
- Treatment
- water deficite2
- Outcome
- [ABA] in leaf and roote6
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Jatropha curcas L.”
e2“Control plants (100% FC) and plants submitted to water deficit (70% FC)”
e6“significant differences among treatments and genotypes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes (SOD, CAT and POD) and [ABA] in leaf and root were demonstrated”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes responded to water deficit through osmolyte accumulation, increased antioxidant enzymes and ABA, an effective response mechanism.
- Taxon
- Jatropha curcas L.Jatropha curcast0
- Compound
- compatible osmolytese7
- Outcome
- effective mechanism of response against the effects of water deficite7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Jatropha curcas L.”
e7“The genotypes exhibited an effective mechanism of response against the effects of water deficit, involving accumulation of compatible osmolytes, and increased antioxidants enzymes and ABA”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: water · Jatropha curcasPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →drought · physiology: ion balance · Jatropha curcasResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
drought · physiology: osmolytes · Jatropha curcasResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.