Abstract
The chickpea genotypes alongwith F4 progeny lines differing in their behavior towards drought stress were evaluated for seed yield, yield attributes and physiological traits related to drought tolerance. Parental genotypes, HC 1 and ICC 4958 were grown under both irrigated and drought conditions and progenies were grown under drought conditions only. Plant water status, relative stress injury (RSI), canopy temperature depression (CTD) and chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) were measured at 50% flowering stage under drought conditions. Drought stress decreased the leaf water potential (LWP), leaf osmotic potential (LOP) and relative water content (RWC) in the plants. The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition. Increase in CTD was 0.9 0C in ICC 4958 as compared to 2.06 0C in HC 1. The ICC 4958 maintained higher Fv/Fm ratio than HC 1 in both irrigated and drought conditions. There is a significant positive correlation between water potential, osmotic potential and RWC with seed yield, whereas, RSI and seed yield were negatively correlated. CTD has a significant negative correlation with WP, OP, RWC and seed yield. The seed yield of HC 1 and ICC 4958 were decreased under drought condition but decrease in yield of genotype ICC 4958 (24.96%) was less than genotype HC 1 (37.32%).
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress decreased leaf water potential, leaf osmotic potential and relative water content in chickpea plants relative to irrigated conditions.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- Drought stresse0
- Outcome
- leaf water potential (LWP), leaf osmotic potential (LOP) and relative water content (RWC)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- irrigatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e0“Drought stress decreased the leaf water potential (LWP), leaf osmotic potential (LOP) and relative water content (RWC) in the plants”
e1“grown under both irrigated and drought conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, water potential in chickpea genotype HC 1 was -1.20 MPa.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- HC 1e1
- Outcome
- water potentiale1
- Value
- -1.20 MPae1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, osmotic potential in chickpea genotype HC 1 was -1.31 MPa.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- HC 1e1
- Outcome
- osmotic potentiale1
- Value
- -1.31 MPae1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, relative water content in chickpea genotype HC 1 was 59.2%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- HC 1e1
- Outcome
- relative water contente1
- Value
- 59.2%e1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, relative stress injury in chickpea genotype HC 1 was 31.28%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- HC 1e1
- Outcome
- relative stress injurye1
- Value
- 31.28%e1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, water potential in chickpea genotype ICC 4958 was -1.00 MPa.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Outcome
- water potentiale1
- Value
- -1.00 MPae1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, osmotic potential in chickpea genotype ICC 4958 was -1.74 MPa.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Outcome
- osmotic potentiale1
- Value
- -1.74 MPae1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, relative water content in chickpea genotype ICC 4958 was 66.58%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Outcome
- relative water contente1
- Value
- 66.58%e1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drought, relative stress injury in chickpea genotype ICC 4958 was 20.93%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Outcome
- relative stress injurye1
- Value
- 20.93%e1
- Setting
- drought conditione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and relative stress injury in HC 1 were -1.20 MPa, -1.31 MPa, 59.2% and 31.28% respectively and in ICC 4958 were -1.00 MPa, -1.74 MPa, 66.58% and 20.93% respectively, under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy temperature depression (CTD) increased by 0.9 0C in ICC 4958, compared with HC 1.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Outcome
- Increase in CTDe1
- Value
- 0.9 0Ce1
- Qualifier
- 2.06 0Ce1
- Comparator
- HC 1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Increase in CTD was 0.9 0C in ICC 4958 as compared to 2.06 0C in HC 1”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy temperature depression (CTD) increased by 2.06 0C in HC 1.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- HC 1e1
- Outcome
- Increase in CTDe1
- Value
- 2.06 0Ce1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Increase in CTD was 0.9 0C in ICC 4958 as compared to 2.06 0C in HC 1”
Claim · model-written summary
ICC 4958 maintained a higher Fv/Fm ratio than HC 1 under both irrigated and drought conditions.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Outcome
- Fv/Fm ratioe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- HC 1e1
- Setting
- irrigated and drought conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“The ICC 4958 maintained higher Fv/Fm ratio than HC 1 in both irrigated and drought conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Water potential, osmotic potential and relative water content were significantly positively correlated with seed yield in chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Organ / stage
- 50% flowering stagee2
- Outcome
- seed yielde1
- Direction
- positive correlatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“There is a significant positive correlation between water potential, osmotic potential and RWC with seed yield”
e2“50% flowering stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative stress injury and seed yield were negatively correlated in chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Organ / stage
- 50% flowering stagee2
- Outcome
- seed yielde1
- Direction
- negatively correlatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“RSI and seed yield were negatively correlated”
e2“50% flowering stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy temperature depression had a significant negative correlation with water potential, osmotic potential, relative water content and seed yield.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Organ / stage
- 50% flowering stagee2
- Outcome
- seed yielde1
- Direction
- negative correlatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“CTD has a significant negative correlation with WP, OP, RWC and seed yield”
e2“50% flowering stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed yield of chickpea genotype ICC 4958 decreased under drought by 24.96%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- ICC 4958e1
- Treatment
- drought conditione0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 24.96%e1
- Comparator
- irrigatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e0“seed yield of HC 1 and ICC 4958 were decreased under drought condition”
e1“decrease in yield of genotype ICC 4958 (24.96%)”
e2“grown under both irrigated and drought conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed yield of chickpea genotype HC 1 decreased under drought by 37.32%.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- HC 1e1
- Treatment
- drought conditione0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 37.32%e1
- Comparator
- irrigatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e0“seed yield of HC 1 and ICC 4958 were decreased under drought condition”
e1“than genotype HC 1 (37.32%)”
e2“grown under both irrigated and drought conditions”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →drought · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.