Abstract
Roughstalk bluegrass (Poa trivialis) is a weed in cool season grass seed production fields in Oregon. Populations of this weed are often greater in fields prone to waterlogging. A greenhouse study was conducted to investigate the morphological and physiological differences between recently established roughstalk bluegrass and tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) plants in response to simulated waterlogging. Differences in root morphological development and root respiration were found between waterlogged tall fescue and roughstalk bluegrass. Plants after 4 weeks of waterlogging, leaf number, plant height, and root biomass were reduced more in tall fescue than in roughstalk bluegrass plants. The root length increased 6% in waterlogged tall fescue plants, and decreased 42% in waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass plants, which lead to a shallower root system in roughstalk bluegrass. Root aerenchyma area increased more in waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass than in tall fescue. Alcohol dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenase activities increased in the roots of both species, but not in the leaves. The increases were greater in tall fescue than in roughstalk bluegrass. Turf quality, aboveground biomass, photosynthetic capacity, and water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations were reduced by waterlogging, but there were no differences over time or species. Thus, the shallower root system, larger aerenchyma, and reduced fermentation rates were the characteristics most likely to contribute to better waterlogging tolerance in roughstalk bluegrass compared to tall fescue and invasion of roughstalk bluegrass in waterlogged cool season grass seed fields.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
After four weeks of waterlogging, leaf number, plant height and root biomass declined more in tall fescue than roughstalk bluegrass.
- Taxon
- tall fescue
Lolium arundinaceume0 - Treatment
- waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- leaf number, plant height, and root biomasse0
- Direction
- reduced moree0
- Qualifier
- 4 weekse0
- Comparator
- roughstalk bluegrasse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants after 4 weeks of waterlogging, leaf number, plant height, and root biomass were reduced more in tall fescue than in roughstalk bluegrass plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging increased tall fescue root length by 6%.
- Taxon
- tall fescueLolium arundinaceume0
- Treatment
- waterloggede0
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root length increased 6% in waterlogged tall fescue plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging decreased roughstalk bluegrass root length by 42%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“decreased 42% in waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass plants”
e1“The root length increased 6% in waterlogged tall fescue plants, and decreased 42% in waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass developed a shallower root system.
Verbatim
e0“which lead to a shallower root system in roughstalk bluegrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Root aerenchyma area increased more in waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass than tall fescue.
Verbatim
e0“Root aerenchyma area increased more in waterlogged roughstalk bluegrass than in tall fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
Root alcohol dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenase activities increased in both species under waterlogging, more in tall fescue.
- Taxon
- both speciese0
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Gene
- Alcohol dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenasee0
- Outcome
- Alcohol dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenase activitiese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- but not in the leavese0
- Comparator
- roughstalk bluegrasse0
Not reportedTreatment
Verbatim
e0“Alcohol dehydrogenase and lactate dehydrogenase activities increased in the roots of both species, but not in the leaves. The increases were greater in tall fescue than in roughstalk bluegrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging reduced turf quality, aboveground biomass and photosynthetic capacity across the two grasses.
- Taxon
- roughstalk bluegrass and tall fescuet0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- Turf quality, aboveground biomass, photosynthetic capacitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- no differences over time or speciese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Turf quality, aboveground biomass, photosynthetic capacity, and water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations were reduced by waterlogging, but there were no differences over time or species”
t0“roughstalk bluegrass and tall fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging reduced water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations without differences by time or species.
- Taxon
- roughstalk bluegrass and tall fescuet0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge0
- Outcome
- water-soluble carbohydrate concentrationse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- no differences over time or speciese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Turf quality, aboveground biomass, photosynthetic capacity, and water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations were reduced by waterlogging, but there were no differences over time or species”
t0“roughstalk bluegrass and tall fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors inferred that shallower roots, larger aerenchyma and lower fermentation may contribute to greater waterlogging tolerance of roughstalk bluegrass.
Verbatim
e0“the shallower root system, larger aerenchyma, and reduced fermentation rates were the characteristics most likely to contribute to better waterlogging tolerance in roughstalk bluegrass compared to tall fescue”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · growth · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.