Abstract
This study examined several divergent alfalfa cultivars over a wide range of soil moisture conditions in controlled watering and natural (field) environments with the objective of characterizing potential differences in plant water relations, productivity and water usage. In addition, the effect of pre-stress conditioning on water relations during a subsequent drought was explored in terms of general impact and possible cultivar differences. A third objective was to evaluate relationships between parameters and yield a better understanding of general water relations in alfalfa. Several water relations parameters including relative water content, and total water, osmotic and turgor potentials were measured or calculated using both field-grown and container-grown alfalfa plants in 1991 and 1992. Aerial dry matter and root production, water usage and water use efficiency were also determined. Water application was controlled in the container-grown experiments to provide well-watered and droughted plant material for comparative measurements. Differences in water relations, productivity and water use between the alfalfa cultivars were revealed. Overall, there appeared to be a tradeoff between productivity and drought tolerance. Benefits of pre-stress conditioning were realized. Osmotic adjustment was determined to be a benefit of pre-stress conditioning, but this benefit was short-lived. Osmotic adjustment of over 0.4 MPa was shown to occur in droughted versus well-watered alfalfa and is likely an important drought tolerance characteristic. Relationships between water relations variables indicated that turgor pressure was generally lost below a leaf relative water content of 72% and a stem water potential of $-$1.76 MPa in moderately to severely drought stressed alfalfa. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa cultivars differed in water relations, productivity and water use.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Material
- cultivarse0
- Outcome
- water relations, productivity and water usee0
- Direction
- Differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in water relations, productivity and water use between the alfalfa cultivars were revealed”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Productivity appeared to trade off with drought tolerance in alfalfa.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- productivitye0
- Direction
- tradeoffe0
- Comparator
- drought tolerancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, there appeared to be a tradeoff between productivity and drought tolerance”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-stress conditioning benefited alfalfa water relations.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- pre-stress conditioninge0
- Outcome
- Benefitse0
- Direction
- Benefitse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Benefits of pre-stress conditioning were realized”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-stress conditioning yielded short-lived osmotic adjustment.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- pre-stress conditioninge0
- Outcome
- Osmotic adjustmente0
- Direction
- benefite0
- Qualifier
- short-livede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Osmotic adjustment was determined to be a benefit of pre-stress conditioning, but this benefit was short-lived”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Droughted alfalfa showed osmotic adjustment over 0.4 MPa relative to well-watered plants.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- droughtede0
- Outcome
- Osmotic adjustmente0
- Direction
- occure0
- Value
- over 0.4 MPae0
- Comparator
- well-waterede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Osmotic adjustment of over 0.4 MPa was shown to occur in droughted versus well-watered alfalfa”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa turgor pressure was generally lost below 72% leaf relative water content.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Organ / stage
- leafe0
- Outcome
- turgor pressuree0
- Direction
- loste0
- Qualifier
- leaf relative water content of 72%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“turgor pressure was generally lost below a leaf relative water content of 72%”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa turgor pressure was generally lost below stem water potential of $-$1.76 MPa.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Organ / stage
- steme0
- Outcome
- turgor pressuree0
- Direction
- loste0
- Qualifier
- stem water potential of $-$1.76 MPae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“turgor pressure was generally lost below a leaf relative water content of 72% and a stem water potential of $-$1.76 MPa”
t0“Comparative water relations and drought tolerance among alfalfa cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: water · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.