Abstract
Several researchers have hypothesized that shade avoidance behaviour is favoured by natural selection because it increases the fitness of individuals. Shade avoidance can be disadvantageous for crops, however, because it reduces allocation of resources to reproductive yield, increases the risk of lodging and reduces weed suppression. One approach to develop varieties with reduced shade avoidance and enhanced agronomic performance is by inducing mutations followed by phenotypic screening. We treated spring wheat seeds with ethyl methanesulfonate and screened the seedlings repeatedly under green filters for plants showing reduced elongation of the first leaf sheath and second leaf lamina. The shade avoidance responses of five promising mutant lines were further compared to non-mutated plants in a climate chamber experiment with added far-red light. Two of the selected lines displayed significantly reduced elongation under all light treatments while two lines showed reduced elongation only in added far-red light. The most promising mutant line did not differ in height from the non-mutated cultivar in neutral light, but elongated 20.6% less in strong far-red light. This traditional forward approach of screening mutagenized spring wheat produced plants with reduced shade avoidance responses. These mutants may generate new molecular handles to modify the reaction of plants to changes in light spectral distribution in traditional and novel cultivation systems.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Two selected wheat lines had significantly reduced elongation under all light treatments.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Material
- Two of the selected linese0
- Treatment
- ethyl methanesulfonatee1
- Outcome
- elongatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two of the selected lines displayed significantly reduced elongation under all light treatments”
t0“cereal crop”
e1“We treated spring wheat seeds with ethyl methanesulfonate”
Claim · model-written summary
Two wheat lines showed reduced elongation only with added far-red light.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Material
- two linese0
- Treatment
- added far-red lighte0
- Outcome
- elongatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- non-mutated plantse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“two lines showed reduced elongation only in added far-red light”
e1“spring wheat seeds”
e2“compared to non-mutated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The most promising wheat mutant line had similar height to the non-mutated cultivar in neutral light.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Material
- most promising mutant linee0
- Treatment
- neutral lighte0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- non-mutated cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most promising mutant line did not differ in height from the non-mutated cultivar in neutral light”
e1“spring wheat seeds”
Claim · model-written summary
The most promising wheat mutant line elongated 20.6% less than the non-mutated cultivar in strong far-red light.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Material
- most promising mutant linee0
- Treatment
- strong far-red lighte0
- Outcome
- elongatede0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 20.6%e0
- Comparator
- non-mutated cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most promising mutant line did not differ in height from the non-mutated cultivar in neutral light, but elongated 20.6% less in strong far-red light”
e1“spring wheat seeds”
The same questions in other papers
ethyl methanesulfonate · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →light · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
81 papers more in this group
See all 85 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.