Abstract
L.) genotypes under contrasting water regimes (1) to assess genotypic variability in root weight density (RWD) distribution in the soil profile, biomass partitioning, and total water used; and (2) to determine the oxygen and hydrogen isotopic signatures of plant and soil water in order to evaluate the contribution of shallow and deep soil water to plant water uptake and the evaporative enrichment of these isotopes in the leaf as a surrogate for plant transpiration. In the 2015 trial under well-watered (WW) conditions, the aerial biomass (AB) was not significantly different among 15 wheat genotypes, while the total root biomass and the RWD distribution in the soil profile were significantly different. In the 2016 and 2017 trials, a subset of five genotypes from the 2015 trial was grown under WW and WL regimes. The water deficit significantly reduced AB only in 2016. The water regimes did not significantly affect the root biomass and root biomass distribution in the soil depths for both the 2016 and 2017 trials. The study results highlighted that under a WL regime, the production of thinner roots with low biomass is more beneficial for increasing the water uptake than the production of large thick roots. The models applied to estimate the relative contribution of the plant's primary water sources (shallow or deep soil water) showed large interindividual variability in soil, and plant water isotopic composition resulted in large uncertainties in the model estimates. On the other side, the combined information of root architecture and the leaf stable isotope signatures could explain plant water status.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Aerial biomass did not differ significantly among 15 wheat genotypes under well-watered conditions in 2015.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- aerial biomass (AB)e0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Value
- 15 wheat genotypese0
- Qualifier
- 2015 trial under well-watered (WW) conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 2015 trial under well-watered (WW) conditions, the aerial biomass (AB) was not significantly different among 15 wheat genotypes, while the total root biomass and the RWD distribution in the soil profile were significantly different.”
Claim · model-written summary
Total root biomass differed significantly among wheat genotypes under well-watered conditions in 2015.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- total root biomasse0
- Direction
- significantly differente0
- Qualifier
- 2015 trial under well-watered (WW) conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 2015 trial under well-watered (WW) conditions, the aerial biomass (AB) was not significantly different among 15 wheat genotypes, while the total root biomass and the RWD distribution in the soil profile were significantly different.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root weight density distribution differed significantly among wheat genotypes under well-watered conditions in 2015.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- RWD distribution in the soil profilee0
- Direction
- significantly differente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 2015 trial under well-watered (WW) conditions, the aerial biomass (AB) was not significantly different among 15 wheat genotypes, while the total root biomass and the RWD distribution in the soil profile were significantly different.”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit significantly reduced wheat aerial biomass in 2016 only.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- ABe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- only in 2016e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The water deficit significantly reduced AB only in 2016.”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Water regimes did not significantly affect wheat root biomass in 2016 or 2017.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- water regimese0
- Outcome
- root biomasse0
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The water regimes did not significantly affect the root biomass and root biomass distribution in the soil depths for both the 2016 and 2017 trials.”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Water regimes did not significantly affect wheat root biomass distribution in 2016 or 2017.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- water regimese0
- Outcome
- root biomass distribution in the soil depthse0
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The water regimes did not significantly affect the root biomass and root biomass distribution in the soil depths for both the 2016 and 2017 trials.”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under water limitation, thinner low-biomass roots were more beneficial for water uptake than large thick roots.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- thinner roots with low biomasse0
- Outcome
- water uptakee0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- large thick rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study results highlighted that under a WL regime, the production of thinner roots with low biomass is more beneficial for increasing the water uptake than the production of large thick roots.”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Models of shallow and deep water contributions had large uncertainty due to interindividual isotope variability.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- large uncertainties in the model estimatese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The models applied to estimate the relative contribution of the plant's primary water sources (shallow or deep soil water) showed large interindividual variability in soil, and plant water isotopic composition resulted in large uncertainties in the model estimates.”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Root architecture and leaf isotope signatures together explained plant water status.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- root architecture and the leaf stable isotope signaturese0
- Outcome
- plant water statuse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On the other side, the combined information of root architecture and the leaf stable isotope signatures could explain plant water status.”
t0“Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 177 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 papers →drought · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
344 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
427 papers more in this group
See all 431 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.