Paper · 2017 · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

The Effect of Foliar Application of Manganese Sulfate on Some Physiological Characteristics and Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes

farhad farahvash; Fatemeh Hashemzade; Farshad Sorkhilalelo

10
claims
24
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-sa

Abstract

To study the effects of spraying manganese sulfate on some physiological characteristics and seed yield of tetraploid and hexaploid varieties of wheat under different irrigation regimes a factorial split plot experiment based on completely randomized design with three replications was conducted at the Research Station of Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, Iran, in the fall of 2013. Irrigation regimes were considered as main factor in three levels, including irrigation at every 7 days (control), cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation (code 30 scale Zadoks) and cutting off of irrigation at booting stage (code 45 scale Zadoks), manganese sulfate fertilizer as sub factor including not spraying, spraying with 50% and 100% concentrations of recommended rate based on soil analysis (with 0.005 concentration) and sub sub factor in four levels, including two levels of each hexaploid (Pishgam and Alvand) and tetraploid (Cheheldaneh and Saji) wheats. The results showed that irrigation regimes significantly affected translocation of dry matter of flag leaf internode, leaf relative water content, duration and rate of seed filling, leaf proline content, water use efficiency and seed yield. Cutting off of irrigation at both stages and also not spraying of manganese sulfate reduced seed yield, rate and duration of seed filling.Cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation stage reduced leaf relative water content (by 33%) as compared to control treatment. Also, cutting off of irrigation increased praline content of leaf, cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation stage increased amount of leaf proline content from 5.35 to 8.34 micro moles per gram. Irrigation at 7 day intervals increased seed filling duration in comparison of cutting irrigation, by 36 days. The highest water use efficiency (0.0018 kg/m3) with total volume water use (2.4 m3) was achieved with the irrigation at 7 day intervals.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation regimes significantly affected dry matter translocation of the flag leaf internode and leaf relative water content.

Treatment
irrigation regimese1
Outcome
translocation of dry matter of flag leaf internode, leaf relative water contente1
Comparator
irrigation at every 7 days (control)e2

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results showed that irrigation regimes significantly affected translocation of dry matter of flag leaf internode, leaf relative water content, duration and rate of seed filling, leaf proline content, water use efficiency and seed yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 988–1227 · show in text ↑
e2

“irrigation at every 7 days (control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–527 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation regimes significantly affected the duration and rate of seed filling.

Treatment
irrigation regimese1
Outcome
duration and rate of seed fillinge1
Comparator
irrigation at every 7 days (control)e2

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results showed that irrigation regimes significantly affected translocation of dry matter of flag leaf internode, leaf relative water content, duration and rate of seed filling, leaf proline content, water use efficiency and seed yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 988–1227 · show in text ↑
e2

“irrigation at every 7 days (control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–527 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation regimes significantly affected leaf proline content, water use efficiency and seed yield.

Treatment
irrigation regimese1
Outcome
leaf proline content, water use efficiency and seed yielde1
Comparator
irrigation at every 7 days (control)e2

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results showed that irrigation regimes significantly affected translocation of dry matter of flag leaf internode, leaf relative water content, duration and rate of seed filling, leaf proline content, water use efficiency and seed yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 988–1227 · show in text ↑
e2

“irrigation at every 7 days (control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–527 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting off irrigation at both stages reduced seed yield, rate and duration of seed filling.

Treatment
Cutting off of irrigation at both stagese3
Outcome
seed yield, rate and duration of seed fillinge3
Direction
reducede3
Comparator
irrigation at every 7 days (control)e2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e2

“irrigation at every 7 days (control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–527 · show in text ↑
e3

“Cutting off of irrigation at both stages and also not spraying of manganese sulfate reduced seed yield, rate and duration of seed filling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1229–1366 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Not spraying manganese sulfate reduced seed yield, rate and duration of seed filling.

Treatment
not spraying of manganese sulfatee3
Outcome
seed yield, rate and duration of seed fillinge3
Direction
reducede3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e3

“Cutting off of irrigation at both stages and also not spraying of manganese sulfate reduced seed yield, rate and duration of seed filling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1229–1366 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting off irrigation at stem elongation reduced leaf relative water content by 33% compared with control.

Treatment
Cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation stagee4
Outcome
leaf relative water contente4
Direction
reducede4
Value
33%e4
Comparator
control treatmente4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e4

“Cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation stage reduced leaf relative water content (by 33%) as compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1367–1495 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting off irrigation increased leaf proline content.

Treatment
cutting off of irrigatione5
Outcome
praline content of leafe5
Direction
increasede5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e5

“Also, cutting off of irrigation increased praline content of leaf”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1497–1562 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting off irrigation at stem elongation increased leaf proline content from 5.35 to 8.34 micro moles per gram.

Treatment
cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation stagee6
Outcome
amount of leaf proline contente6
Direction
increasede6
Value
5.35 to 8.34 micro moles per grame6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e6

“cutting off of irrigation at stem elongation stage increased amount of leaf proline content from 5.35 to 8.34 micro moles per gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1564–1694 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation at 7-day intervals increased seed filling duration by 36 days compared with cutting irrigation.

Treatment
Irrigation at 7 day intervalse7
Outcome
seed filling duratione7
Direction
increasede7
Value
36 dayse7
Comparator
cutting irrigatione7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e7

“Irrigation at 7 day intervals increased seed filling duration in comparison of cutting irrigation, by 36 days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1696–1805 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation at 7-day intervals gave the highest water use efficiency, 0.0018 kg/m3.

Treatment
irrigation at 7 day intervalse4
Outcome
water use efficiencye4
Direction
higheste4
Value
0.0018 kg/m3e4
Qualifier
total volume water use (2.4 m3)e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Grain Yield of Wheat under Different Irrigation Regimes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–151 · show in text ↑
e4

“The highest water use efficiency (0.0018 kg/m3) with total volume water use (2.4 m3) was achieved with the irrigation at 7 day intervals”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1807–1943 · show in text ↑

manganese(II) sulfate monohydrate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

pruning · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

pruning · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

93 papers: 33 positive, 60 negative or no effect

59 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

89 papers more in this group

See all 93 papers →

irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

303 papers: 253 positive, 50 negative or no effect

252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

299 papers more in this group

See all 303 papers →

application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 795 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

873 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

989 papers: 798 positive, 191 negative or no effect

797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

985 papers more in this group

See all 989 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.