Paper · 2019 · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

In vitro drought effects on morphological and physiological indices of two fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars

Shekafandeh, A.; Hojati, S.

16
claims
35
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-sa

Abstract

In vitro responses of two fig cultivars, ‘Sabz’ and ‘Siah’, were evaluated in MS media containing four levels of polyethylene glycol (PEG) (0, 2, 4, 6%) as a simulation of water stress. The results showed that in Sabz cultivar, shoot length, shoot fresh and dry weights were 43, 36 and 25%, respectively, lower than control in drought treatments caused by 4% PEG, while the leaf area and specific leaf area were not significantly (P>0.05) affected. In Siah cultivar, shoot length, fresh and dry weights were 57, 58 and 40%, respectively, lower in stressed media in comparison to control. In contrast to Sabz cultivar, leaf area and specific leaf area of Siah cultivar were significantly reduced by addition of 6% PEG (56 and 21.5%, respectively). Naturally, the amount of proline in ‘Sabz’ was higher than in ‘Siah’ (81.8 µmole g-1 versus 16.7 µmole g-1). However, in both cultivars, with the addition of PEG in culture media, leaf proline content was increased, in comparison to control. With increasing PEG% in culture media, the amount of leaf soluble sugars content increased and the amount of starch decreased. The results show that ‘Siah’ is more sensitive to drought than ‘Sabz’ and that in vitro culture can be used to evaluate drought tolerance of cultivars.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 16

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 4% PEG, Sabz shoot length was 43% lower than control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Sabze0
Treatment
4% PEGe0
Outcome
shoot lengthe0
Direction
lowere0
Value
43e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“in Sabz cultivar, shoot length, shoot fresh and dry weights were 43, 36 and 25%, respectively, lower than control in drought treatments caused by 4% PEG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–362 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 4% PEG, Sabz shoot fresh weight was 36% lower than control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Sabze0
Treatment
4% PEGe0
Outcome
shoot freshe0
Direction
lowere0
Value
36e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“in Sabz cultivar, shoot length, shoot fresh and dry weights were 43, 36 and 25%, respectively, lower than control in drought treatments caused by 4% PEG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–362 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 4% PEG, Sabz shoot dry weight was 25% lower than control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Sabze0
Treatment
4% PEGe0
Outcome
dry weightse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
25%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“in Sabz cultivar, shoot length, shoot fresh and dry weights were 43, 36 and 25%, respectively, lower than control in drought treatments caused by 4% PEG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–362 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sabz leaf area and specific leaf area were not significantly affected by 4% PEG.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Sabze1
Treatment
4% PEGe1
Outcome
leaf area and specific leaf areae0
Direction
no_changeinferrede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“while the leaf area and specific leaf area were not significantly (P>0.05) affected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 364–448 · show in text ↑
e1

“in Sabz cultivar, shoot length, shoot fresh and dry weights were 43, 36 and 25%, respectively, lower than control in drought treatments caused by 4% PEG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–362 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In stressed media, Siah shoot length was 57% lower than control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Siahe0
Treatment
stressed mediae0
Outcome
shoot lengthe0
Direction
lowere0
Value
57e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“In Siah cultivar, shoot length, fresh and dry weights were 57, 58 and 40%, respectively, lower in stressed media in comparison to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–587 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In stressed media, Siah shoot fresh weight was 58% lower than control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Siahe0
Treatment
stressed mediae0
Outcome
freshe0
Direction
lowere0
Value
58e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“In Siah cultivar, shoot length, fresh and dry weights were 57, 58 and 40%, respectively, lower in stressed media in comparison to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–587 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In stressed media, Siah shoot dry weight was 40% lower than control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Siahe0
Treatment
stressed mediae0
Outcome
dry weightse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
40%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“In Siah cultivar, shoot length, fresh and dry weights were 57, 58 and 40%, respectively, lower in stressed media in comparison to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–587 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

With 6% PEG, Siah leaf area was significantly reduced by 56%.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Siahe0
Treatment
6% PEGe0
Outcome
leaf areae0
Direction
reducede0
Value
56e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“leaf area and specific leaf area of Siah cultivar were significantly reduced by addition of 6% PEG (56 and 21.5%, respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 618–746 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

With 6% PEG, Siah specific leaf area was significantly reduced by 21.5%.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Siahe0
Treatment
6% PEGe0
Outcome
specific leaf areae0
Direction
reducede0
Value
21.5%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“leaf area and specific leaf area of Siah cultivar were significantly reduced by addition of 6% PEG (56 and 21.5%, respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 618–746 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sabz had higher proline than Siah, 81.8 versus 16.7 µmole g-1.

Taxon
figt0
Material
‘Sabz’e0
Outcome
amount of prolinee0
Direction
highere0
Value
81.8 µmole g-1e0
Qualifier
16.7 µmole g-1e0
Comparator
‘Siah’e0

Verbatim

e0

“Naturally, the amount of proline in ‘Sabz’ was higher than in ‘Siah’ (81.8 µmole g-1 versus 16.7 µmole g-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 747–855 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PEG increased leaf proline content in Sabz relative to control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Sabze1
Treatment
PEG in culture mediae0
Outcome
leaf proline contente0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“in both cultivars, with the addition of PEG in culture media, leaf proline content was increased, in comparison to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–988 · show in text ↑
e1

“in Sabz cultivar, shoot length, shoot fresh and dry weights were 43, 36 and 25%, respectively, lower than control in drought treatments caused by 4% PEG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–362 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PEG increased leaf proline content in Siah relative to control.

Taxon
figt0
Material
Siahe1
Treatment
PEG in culture mediae0
Outcome
leaf proline contente0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“in both cultivars, with the addition of PEG in culture media, leaf proline content was increased, in comparison to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–988 · show in text ↑
e1

“In Siah cultivar, shoot length, fresh and dry weights were 57, 58 and 40%, respectively, lower in stressed media in comparison to control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–587 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing PEG increased fig leaf soluble sugars.

Taxon
figt0
Treatment
increasing PEG% in culture mediae0
Outcome
leaf soluble sugars contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“With increasing PEG% in culture media, the amount of leaf soluble sugars content increased and the amount of starch decreased.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1115 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing PEG decreased fig starch.

Taxon
figt0
Treatment
increasing PEG% in culture mediae0
Outcome
starche0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“With increasing PEG% in culture media, the amount of leaf soluble sugars content increased and the amount of starch decreased.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1115 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Siah was more drought sensitive than Sabz.

Taxon
figt0
Material
‘Siah’e0
Outcome
sensitive to droughte0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
‘Sabz’e0

Verbatim

e0

“The results show that ‘Siah’ is more sensitive to drought than ‘Sabz’ and that in vitro culture can be used to evaluate drought tolerance of cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1116–1267 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In vitro culture can be used to evaluate cultivar drought tolerance.

Taxon
figt0
Outcome
evaluate drought tolerance of cultivarse0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Verbatim

e0

“in vitro culture can be used to evaluate drought tolerance of cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1195–1267 · show in text ↑
t0

“fig”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–78 · show in text ↑

in vitro · growth · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.