Paper · 2021 · Arid Land Research and Management

Physiological and biochemical properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under different mulching and water management systems in the semi-arid region of Punjab, Pakistan

Salman Ahmad; Muhammad Saqlain Zaheer; Hafiz Haider Ali; et al.

11
claims
18
verbatim quotes
12
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In order to meet the dietary requirements of the rising human population with diminishing water resources, there is the need to adopt techniques that optimize crop yield under reduced water conditions. Therefore, a greenhouse experiment was carried out to determine the effect of mulching and reduced irrigation on wheat production. The experiment included four mulching treatments (un-mulched, black plastic sheet mulch, wheat straw mulch and cotton sticks mulch) and two watering regimes (normal watering and partial root-zone drying irrigation (PRI) technique that involves alternate watering to only one side of root zone only) arranged in a completely randomized design. Wheat growth (leaf area index, plant height), water related parameters (leaf relative water contents (RWC), leaf turgor potential and physiological (chlorophyll contents, stomatal oscillation and photosynthetic rate) parameters and biochemical indicators were significantly higher with mulching than un-mulched for both irrigation levels. However, among the mulching treatments, the use of black plastic mulch gave the best results. Among the mulch treatments, RWC increased by 4.29%, 7.50% and 10.73% with black plastic mulch compared to wheat straw mulch, cotton stick mulch and control treatment, respectively. Between the two irrigation levels, higher wheat growth, physiological and water related parameters were found with full irrigation. Whereas leaf osmotic potential, quality traits and antioxidant enzymatic activities were higher with PRI. This study shows that, particularly with black plastic film, mulching combined with partial root zone drying can be effectively used in conserving soil water, thus increasing crop water use, photosynthetic rate, and yield.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching significantly increased wheat growth measures under both irrigation levels.

Treatment
mulchinge0
Outcome
leaf area index, plant heighte0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
un-mulchede0

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

e0

“Wheat growth (leaf area index, plant height), water related parameters (leaf relative water contents (RWC), leaf turgor potential and physiological (chlorophyll contents, stomatal oscillation and photosynthetic rate) parameters and biochemical indicators were significantly higher with mulching than un-mulched for both irrigation levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–1014 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching significantly increased wheat leaf water measures under both irrigation levels.

Treatment
mulchinge0
Outcome
leaf relative water contents (RWC), leaf turgor potentiale0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
un-mulchede0

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

e0

“Wheat growth (leaf area index, plant height), water related parameters (leaf relative water contents (RWC), leaf turgor potential and physiological (chlorophyll contents, stomatal oscillation and photosynthetic rate) parameters and biochemical indicators were significantly higher with mulching than un-mulched for both irrigation levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–1014 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching significantly increased wheat chlorophyll, stomatal and photosynthetic parameters.

Treatment
mulchinge0
Outcome
chlorophyll contents, stomatal oscillation and photosynthetic ratee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
un-mulchede0

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

e0

“Wheat growth (leaf area index, plant height), water related parameters (leaf relative water contents (RWC), leaf turgor potential and physiological (chlorophyll contents, stomatal oscillation and photosynthetic rate) parameters and biochemical indicators were significantly higher with mulching than un-mulched for both irrigation levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–1014 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching significantly increased wheat biochemical indicators.

Treatment
mulchinge0
Outcome
biochemical indicatorse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
un-mulchede0

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

e0

“Wheat growth (leaf area index, plant height), water related parameters (leaf relative water contents (RWC), leaf turgor potential and physiological (chlorophyll contents, stomatal oscillation and photosynthetic rate) parameters and biochemical indicators were significantly higher with mulching than un-mulched for both irrigation levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–1014 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black plastic mulch gave the best overall results among mulches.

Treatment
black plastic mulche0
Outcome
best resultse0
Direction
beste0
Comparator
mulching treatmentse0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“among the mulching treatments, the use of black plastic mulch gave the best results.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1024–1108 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black plastic mulch increased wheat RWC by 4.29% versus wheat straw mulch.

Treatment
black plastic mulche0
Outcome
RWCe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
4.29%e0
Comparator
wheat straw mulche0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“RWC increased by 4.29%, 7.50% and 10.73% with black plastic mulch compared to wheat straw mulch, cotton stick mulch and control treatment, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1137–1289 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black plastic mulch increased wheat RWC by 7.50% versus cotton stick mulch.

Treatment
black plastic mulche0
Outcome
RWCe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
7.50%e0
Comparator
cotton stick mulche0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“RWC increased by 4.29%, 7.50% and 10.73% with black plastic mulch compared to wheat straw mulch, cotton stick mulch and control treatment, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1137–1289 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black plastic mulch increased wheat RWC by 10.73% versus control.

Treatment
black plastic mulche0
Outcome
RWCe0
Direction
increasede0
Value
10.73%e0
Comparator
control treatmente0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“RWC increased by 4.29%, 7.50% and 10.73% with black plastic mulch compared to wheat straw mulch, cotton stick mulch and control treatment, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1137–1289 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full irrigation gave higher wheat growth, physiology and water measures than PRI.

Treatment
full irrigatione0
Outcome
wheat growth, physiological and water related parameterse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
two irrigation levelse0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“Between the two irrigation levels, higher wheat growth, physiological and water related parameters were found with full irrigation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1290–1421 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRI gave higher leaf osmotic potential, quality and antioxidant enzyme activity.

Treatment
PRIe0
Outcome
leaf osmotic potential, quality traits and antioxidant enzymatic activitiese0
Direction
highere0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“Whereas leaf osmotic potential, quality traits and antioxidant enzymatic activities were higher with PRI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1422–1527 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend black plastic mulch with partial root zone drying to conserve soil water and increase wheat water use, photosynthesis and yield.

Outcome
mulching combined with partial root zone drying can be effectively used in conserving soil watere0

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

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–49 · show in text ↑
e0

“particularly with black plastic film, mulching combined with partial root zone drying can be effectively used in conserving soil water, thus increasing crop water use, photosynthetic rate, and yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1551–1750 · show in text ↑

mulching · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

44 papers: 41 positive, 3 negative or no effect

40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

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

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

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

mulching · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

64 papers: 58 positive, 6 negative or no effect

57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 papers →

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

242 papers: 177 positive, 65 negative or no effect

176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

238 papers more in this group

See all 242 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. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

299 papers more in this group

See all 303 papers →

mulching · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.