Abstract
The effects of drought on growth, several physiological and biochemical processes in six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and two rhizobial strains (MC07 and MC10) were studied. The experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions. Seedlings were grown under three regimes moistening and inoculated separately: 100 % of field capacity (control), 80% of field capacity (optimal irrigation) and 40% of field capacity (water deficit). The results showed that the hydric deficit had significantly perturbed the dry biomass, proline activity, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents. Moreover, this constraint negatively affected the water deficit saturation (WDS), the membrane permeability and the stomatal conductance of leaves. Under drought, the varieties Zhour and Rizki showed a better water efficiency that was translated by high level in proline accumulation, membrane stability, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents. These parameters were maintained at the adequate levels with the rhizobial strain MC07 which showed a tolerance in the drought condition. On the contrary, the symbiotic combination least powerful according to the studied parameters is formed by the variety P37-MC10.
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
Water deficit significantly perturbed dry biomass and proline activity in chickpea compared with the control.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Material
- varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37)e1
- Treatment
- hydric deficite0
- Outcome
- dry biomass, proline activitye0
- Direction
- significantly perturbede0
- Comparator
- 100 % of field capacity (control)e3
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the hydric deficit had significantly perturbed the dry biomass, proline activity, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents”
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“The experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions”
e3“100 % of field capacity (control)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit significantly perturbed total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents in chickpea compared with the control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37)e1
- Treatment
- hydric deficite0
- Outcome
- total chlorophyll and nitrogen contentse0
- Direction
- significantly perturbede0
- Comparator
- 100 % of field capacity (control)e3
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the hydric deficit had significantly perturbed the dry biomass, proline activity, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents”
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e2“The experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions”
e3“100 % of field capacity (control)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit negatively affected water deficit saturation, membrane permeability and stomatal conductance of chickpea leaves.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- hydric deficite0
- Outcome
- water deficit saturation (WDS), the membrane permeability and the stomatal conductancee4
- Direction
- negatively affectede4
- Comparator
- 100 % of field capacity (control)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the hydric deficit had significantly perturbed the dry biomass, proline activity, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents”
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e3“100 % of field capacity (control)”
e4“Moreover, this constraint negatively affected the water deficit saturation (WDS), the membrane permeability and the stomatal conductance of leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, varieties Zhour and Rizki showed better water efficiency.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- Zhour and Rizkie5
- Treatment
- Under droughte5
- Outcome
- water efficiencye5
- Direction
- bettere5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e5“Under drought, the varieties Zhour and Rizki showed a better water efficiency that was translated by high level in proline accumulation, membrane stability, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, varieties Zhour and Rizki showed high proline accumulation and membrane stability.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- Zhour and Rizkie5
- Treatment
- Under droughte5
- Outcome
- proline accumulation, membrane stabilitye5
- Direction
- high levele5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e5“Under drought, the varieties Zhour and Rizki showed a better water efficiency that was translated by high level in proline accumulation, membrane stability, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, varieties Zhour and Rizki showed high total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- Zhour and Rizkie5
- Treatment
- Under droughte5
- Outcome
- total chlorophyll and nitrogen contentse5
- Direction
- high levele5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e5“Under drought, the varieties Zhour and Rizki showed a better water efficiency that was translated by high level in proline accumulation, membrane stability, total chlorophyll and nitrogen contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobial strain MC07 maintained the studied parameters at adequate levels under drought and showed tolerance.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- rhizobial strain MC07e6
- Interactor
- rhizobial strain MC07e6symbiont
- Outcome
- parameterse6
- Direction
- maintainede6
- Qualifier
- tolerance in the drought conditione6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e6“These parameters were maintained at the adequate levels with the rhizobial strain MC07 which showed a tolerance in the drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
The symbiotic combination P37-MC10 was the least powerful combination for the studied parameters.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- P37-MC10e7
- Interactor
- MC10e7symbiont
- Outcome
- symbiotic combinatione7
- Direction
- least powerfule7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“six winter varieties (Zhour, Rizki, Douyet, V46, V34 and P37) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
e7“the symbiotic combination least powerful according to the studied parameters is formed by the variety P37-MC10”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: pigments · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →drought · physiology: oxidative · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 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.