Abstract
【Objective】 One efficient approach to enhance plant drought tolerance is to decrease water loss during leaf transpiration through stoma regulation, which results in the variation of leaf temperature. The objectives of this study were to detect the relation between leaf temperature variation and biomass accumulation to serve as an evidence for screening the germplasms tolerant to drought at maize seedling stage under moderate drought stress. 【Method】 Eighty- three elite maize inbred lines from China were used to identify the variation of seedling leaf temperature under moderate drought stress. An infrared thermography was employed to measure leaf temperature. Leaf stomatal conductance and transpiration rate were determined by porometer. Plant biomass was measured by electronic balance. 【Result】 Among the measured maize inbred lines at seedling stage under drought stress, relative biomass weight ranged from 0.271 to 0.997 (relative fresh weight), and from 0.338 to 0.969 (relative dry weight), leaf temperature difference varied between -0.1-+0.5 ℃, which reached to significant levels. Under the drought condition, leaf temperature of drought tolerance lines rose significantly, while those of drought sensitive had not obvious variation. Leaf temperature difference between drought stress and well-watered conditions showed a significant positive correlation with relative fresh biomass (0.283*, 0.288**, n=83) and relative dry biomass (0.239*, 0.273**, n=83). Significant correlations of leaf temperature difference with stomatal conductance and transpiration rate were also detected. 【Conclusion】 Transpiration rate was one of the main causes affecting leaf temperature variation and stomatal behaviour served as an important regulation in leaf temperature response to water stress. Under drought stress, leaf temperature difference can reflect the capability of drought tolerance of maize significantly. It was feasible that infrared thermography could be adopted in screening drought-tolerance germplams at maize seedling stage and accelerates the breeding effect for drought-tolerance as an assistant means.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Relative fresh biomass across maize lines ranged from 0.271 to 0.997 under drought.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“relative biomass weight ranged from 0.271 to 0.997 (relative fresh weight)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative dry biomass ranged from 0.338 to 0.969 under drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“from 0.338 to 0.969 (relative dry weight)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf temperature difference ranged from -0.1-+0.5 ℃ and reached significance.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf temperature difference varied between -0.1-+0.5 ℃, which reached to significant levels.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought-tolerant lines showed a significant leaf temperature rise under drought.
- Material
- drought tolerance linese0
- Treatment
- drought conditione0
- Outcome
- leaf temperaturee0
- Direction
- rosee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under the drought condition, leaf temperature of drought tolerance lines rose significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought-sensitive lines showed no obvious leaf temperature variation under drought.
- Material
- drought sensitivee0
- Treatment
- drought conditione1
- Outcome
- leaf temperaturee1
- Direction
- not obvious variatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“those of drought sensitive had not obvious variation”
e1“Under the drought condition, leaf temperature of drought tolerance lines rose significantly”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf temperature difference positively correlated with relative fresh biomass.
- Treatment
- Leaf temperature difference between drought stress and well-watered conditionse0
- Outcome
- relative fresh biomasse0
- Direction
- positive correlatione0
- Value
- 0.283*, 0.288**e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf temperature difference between drought stress and well-watered conditions showed a significant positive correlation with relative fresh biomass (0.283*, 0.288**, n=83)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf temperature difference positively correlated with relative dry biomass.
- Treatment
- Leaf temperature difference between drought stress and well-watered conditionse0
- Outcome
- relative dry biomasse0
- Direction
- positive correlatione0
- Value
- 0.239*, 0.273**e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf temperature difference between drought stress and well-watered conditions showed a significant positive correlation with relative fresh biomass (0.283*, 0.288**, n=83) and relative dry biomass (0.239*, 0.273**, n=83)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf temperature difference significantly correlated with stomatal conductance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant correlations of leaf temperature difference with stomatal conductance and transpiration rate were also detected.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf temperature difference significantly correlated with transpiration rate.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant correlations of leaf temperature difference with stomatal conductance and transpiration rate were also detected.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Transpiration rate was identified as a main cause of leaf temperature variation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Transpiration rate was one of the main causes affecting leaf temperature variation”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal behaviour was identified as an important regulator of leaf temperature response to water stress.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stomatal behaviour served as an important regulation in leaf temperature response to water stress”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, leaf temperature difference significantly reflected maize drought tolerance.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under drought stress, leaf temperature difference can reflect the capability of drought tolerance of maize significantly.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged infrared thermography feasible as an aid for screening drought-tolerant maize seedlings.
- Organ / stage
- seedling stagee0
- Outcome
- infrared thermography could be adopted in screening drought-tolerance germplamse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was feasible that infrared thermography could be adopted in screening drought-tolerance germplams at maize seedling stage and accelerates the breeding effect for drought-tolerance as an assistant means.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
drought · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.