Abstract
Water stress is a key factor limiting sorghum growth and yield potential. This study investigated the changes in morphology, photosynthetic parameters, and fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress. The results indicated that these two types of water stress limited sorghum growth and led to a decrease in leaf chlorophyll (Chl), especially Chl a, which was accompanied by a decrease in net photosynthetic rate. In addition, under both types of water stress, the light-compensation point (LCP) and light-saturation point (LSP) both decreased, but the effect on these parameters was more obvious under drought. In terms of fluorescence parameters, the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased. In summary, these results suggest that sorghum adapts to drought and waterlogging stress by reducing the leaf Chl a content, reducing LCP and LSP, and changing fluorescence parameters.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Drought and waterlogging limited sorghum growth.
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these two types of water stress limited sorghum growth and led to a decrease in leaf chlorophyll (Chl), especially Chl a, which was accompanied by a decrease in net photosynthetic rate”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decrease leaf chlorophyll.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these two types of water stress limited sorghum growth and led to a decrease in leaf chlorophyll (Chl), especially Chl a, which was accompanied by a decrease in net photosynthetic rate”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decrease Chl a.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these two types of water stress limited sorghum growth and led to a decrease in leaf chlorophyll (Chl), especially Chl a, which was accompanied by a decrease in net photosynthetic rate”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decrease net photosynthetic rate.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these two types of water stress limited sorghum growth and led to a decrease in leaf chlorophyll (Chl), especially Chl a, which was accompanied by a decrease in net photosynthetic rate”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decreased light-compensation point.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under both types of water stress, the light-compensation point (LCP) and light-saturation point (LSP) both decreased, but the effect on these parameters was more obvious under drought”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decreased light-saturation point.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under both types of water stress, the light-compensation point (LCP) and light-saturation point (LSP) both decreased, but the effect on these parameters was more obvious under drought”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging increased initial fluorescence.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging increased variable fluorescence.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging did not change maximum fluorescence.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decreased electron transport rate.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decreased photochemical quenching.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought and waterlogging decreased PSII actual quantum yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the initial fluorescence and variable fluorescence increased under drought and waterlogging stress, while the maximum fluorescence did not change significantly, and the electron transport rate, photochemical quenching, and PSII actual quantum yield decreased”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought affected LCP and LSP more strongly than waterlogging.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under both types of water stress, the light-compensation point (LCP) and light-saturation point (LSP) both decreased, but the effect on these parameters was more obvious under drought”
t0“Changes in photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of sorghum under drought and waterlogging stress”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: pigments · SorghumResults differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- no effect
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →drought · growth · SorghumResults differ
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →flooding · growth · SorghumPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · SorghumResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
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.