Abstract
C4 photosynthetic pathway has an advantage over the C3 photosynthesis in arid environments due to a CO2 concentrating mechanism, enabling prolonged stomatal closure. However, the question arises if the metabolic limitations do not outweigh the stomatal limitations in the case of a severe water deficit. The aim of this research is to investigate the differences of drought resistance between C3 plant spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and C4 plant common millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) according to the impact of relatively slight and severe drought on growth, photosynthetic apparatus and membrane oxidative damage. The growth of the millet plants was impaired more seriously than that of the barley plants. The height of slight or severe drought-treated barley decreased by 5.0% and 15.4% of control level, compared to the height decreased by 18.7% and 28.9% respectively for the millet plants. No statistically significant decrease in shoot dry weigh was detected after slight drought, whereas the strong drought reduced accumulation of shoot dry biomass of barley and millet by 12.7% and 17.7%, respectively. The photosynthetic rate of the millet plants was less affected in comparison to barley. Considerably lower stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, intercellular CO2 concentration, lipid peroxidation and higher water use efficiency (WUE) were detected for the millet plants. However, the growth and the photosynthetic rate of barley plants were more able to recover during the period of re-watering. Our results suggest that the advantages of the C4 photosynthetic pathway could lead to higher drought resistance due to lower oxidative stress (determined by an absence of photorespiration) and higher WUE. On the other hand, the contribution of non-stomatal and redox-independent limitations of growth remains to be
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Slight drought reduced barley height by 5.0% of control.
- Taxon
- barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree0 - Treatment
- slighte0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 5.0%e0
- Comparator
- control levele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“height of slight or severe drought-treated barley decreased by 5.0% and 15.4% of control level”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe drought reduced barley height by 15.4% of control.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Treatment
- severe droughte0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 15.4%e0
- Comparator
- control levele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“height of slight or severe drought-treated barley decreased by 5.0% and 15.4% of control level”
Claim · model-written summary
Slight drought reduced millet height by 18.7%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“height decreased by 18.7% and 28.9% respectively for the millet plants”
e1“slight or severe drought-treated barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe drought reduced millet height by 28.9%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“height decreased by 18.7% and 28.9% respectively for the millet plants”
e1“slight or severe drought-treated barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Slight drought caused no statistically significant decline in shoot dry weight.
- Taxon
- Hordeum vulgare L.Hordeum vulgaret0
- Treatment
- slight droughte0
- Outcome
- shoot dry weighe0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Hordeum vulgare L.”
e0“No statistically significant decrease in shoot dry weigh was detected after slight drought”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong drought reduced barley shoot dry biomass by 12.7%.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Treatment
- strong droughte0
- Outcome
- accumulation of shoot dry biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 12.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“strong drought reduced accumulation of shoot dry biomass of barley and millet by 12.7% and 17.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong drought reduced millet shoot dry biomass by 17.7%.
- Taxon
- millete0
- Treatment
- strong droughte0
- Outcome
- accumulation of shoot dry biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 17.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“strong drought reduced accumulation of shoot dry biomass of barley and millet by 12.7% and 17.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet photosynthetic rate was less affected by drought than barley.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthetic rate of the millet plants was less affected in comparison to barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet had lower stomatal conductance, transpiration, intercellular CO2 and lipid peroxidation than barley.
Verbatim
e0“lower stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, intercellular CO2 concentration, lipid peroxidation and higher water use efficiency (WUE) were detected for the millet plants”
e1“in comparison to barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet had higher water use efficiency than barley.
Verbatim
e0“higher water use efficiency (WUE) were detected for the millet plants”
e1“in comparison to barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley growth and photosynthetic rate recovered better during re-watering than millet.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Outcome
- growth and the photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- more able to recovere0
- Comparator
- millete1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growth and the photosynthetic rate of barley plants were more able to recover during the period of re-watering”
e1“The growth of the millet plants was impaired more seriously than that of the barley plants”
The same questions in other papers
drought · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
89 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 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.