Abstract
In the pot experiments with commercial genotypes of common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze) genotypic differences were studied in the capacity for osmotic adjustment occurred under progressive drought. The degree of plant drought tolerance was characterized through quantification of stomatal conductance, free proline and pigment contents. Water stress negatively affected the water regime of plants of all studied genotypes. Under the well-hydrated conditions, a non-significant genotypic difference was observed in the relative water content (RWC) (P=0.545) and osmotic potential (ψS) (P=0.637), respectively. The significant genotypic differences were observed in stomatal conductance (P<0.001). In the terminal phase of dehydration cycle, the statistically significant genotype differences (P<0.01) in RWC and ψS, as well as in the capacity for osmotic adjustment (P=0.032) was recorded. Moreover, a significant correlation between the osmotic adjustment and concentration of proline was measured in all genotypes (rP=0.74, P=0.009). The results showed that proline is an important osmolyte in spinach during the progressive dehydration. It was also observed that the stomata of New Zealand spinach were very sensitive to dehydration. The concentration of chlorophyll pigments, especially Chl b, decreased and Chl a/ Chl b ratio increased under dehydration in all genotypes. Finally, drought resistance of spinach genotypes (especially 'Neptun') can be characterized by the mechanism of dehydration tolerance and plants of New Zealand spinach by the mechanism of dehydration avoidance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress impaired plant water status in all studied spinach genotypes.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Water stress negatively affected the water regime of plants of all studied genotypes”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under well-hydrated conditions, genotypes did not differ significantly in relative water content or osmotic potential.
Verbatim
e0“Under the well-hydrated conditions, a non-significant genotypic difference was observed in the relative water content (RWC) (P=0.545) and osmotic potential (ψS) (P=0.637), respectively”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance differed significantly among genotypes.
Verbatim
e0“The significant genotypic differences were observed in stomatal conductance (P<0.001)”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
At terminal dehydration, genotypes differed significantly in relative water content, osmotic potential, and osmotic adjustment.
Verbatim
e0“In the terminal phase of dehydration cycle, the statistically significant genotype differences (P<0.01) in RWC and ψS, as well as in the capacity for osmotic adjustment (P=0.032) was recorded”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic adjustment correlated significantly with proline concentration across genotypes.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“a significant correlation between the osmotic adjustment and concentration of proline was measured in all genotypes (rP=0.74, P=0.009)”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
Proline was interpreted as an important osmolyte during progressive dehydration in spinach.
- Taxon
- spinach
Spinacia oleraceae0 - Compound
- prolinee0
- Outcome
- important osmolytee0
- Qualifier
- progressive dehydratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“proline is an important osmolyte in spinach during the progressive dehydration”
Claim · model-written summary
New Zealand spinach stomata were highly sensitive to dehydration.
Verbatim
e0“the stomata of New Zealand spinach were very sensitive to dehydration”
Claim · model-written summary
Dehydration decreased chlorophyll pigment concentration, particularly chlorophyll b, in all genotypes.
- Taxon
- common spinacht0
- Treatment
- dehydratione0
- Outcome
- concentration of chlorophyll pigments, especially Chl be0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The concentration of chlorophyll pigments, especially Chl b, decreased and Chl a/ Chl b ratio increased under dehydration in all genotypes”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dehydration increased the chlorophyll a to b ratio in all genotypes.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Chl a/ Chl b ratio increased under dehydration in all genotypes”
t0“common spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) and New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze)”
Claim · model-written summary
Common spinach genotypes, especially Neptun, were characterized by dehydration tolerance.
- Taxon
- spinachSpinacia oleraceae0
- Material
- Neptune0
- Outcome
- dehydration tolerancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drought resistance of spinach genotypes (especially 'Neptun') can be characterized by the mechanism of dehydration tolerance”
Claim · model-written summary
New Zealand spinach was characterized by dehydration avoidance.
Verbatim
e0“plants of New Zealand spinach by the mechanism of dehydration avoidance”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: pigments · Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.