Abstract
Ensuring food security with severe shortages of freshwater and drastic changes in climatic conditions in arid countries requires the urgent development of feasible and user-friendly strategies. Relatively little is known regarding the impacts of the co-application (Co-A) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) through foliar (F) and soil (S) application strategies on field crops under arid and semiarid climatic conditions. A two-year field experiment was designed to compare the impacts of seven (Co-A) treatments of this strategy, including a control, FSA+Mic, FSA+Mac, SSA + FMic, SSA + FSA+Mic, SSA+Mic + FSA, and SSA+Mic + FMac+Mic on the agronomic performance, physiological attributes, and water productivity (WP) of wheat under normal (NI) and limited (LMI) irrigation conditions. The results reveal that the LMI treatment caused a significant reduction in various traits related to the growth (plant height, tiller and green leaf numbers, leaf area index, and shoot dry weight), physiology (relative water content and chlorophyll pigments), and yield components (spike length, grain weight and grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and harvest index) of wheat by 11.4–47.8%, 21.8–39.8%, and 16.4–42.3%, respectively, while WP increased by 13.3% compared to the NI treatment. The different Co-A treatments have shown a 0.2–23.7%, 3.6–26.7%, 2.3–21.6%, and 12.2–25.0% increase in various traits related to growth, physiology, yield, and WP, respectively, in comparison to the control treatment. The SSA+ FSA+Mic was determined as the best treatment that achieved the best results for all studied traits under both irrigation conditions, followed by FSA+Mic and SSA+Mic + FSA under LMI in addition to FSA+Mac under NI conditions. It can be concluded that the Co-A of essential plant nutrients along with SA accomplished a feasible, profitable, and easy-to-use strategy to attenuate the negative impacts of deficit irrigation stress, along with the further improvement in the growth and production of wheat under NI conditions.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Limited irrigation reduced wheat growth traits by 11.4–47.8% versus normal irrigation.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- LMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- plant height, tiller and green leaf numbers, leaf area index, and shoot dry weighte0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 11.4–47.8%e0
- Comparator
- NI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results reveal that the LMI treatment caused a significant reduction in various traits related to the growth (plant height, tiller and green leaf numbers, leaf area index, and shoot dry weight), physiology (relative water content and chlorophyll pigments), and yield components (spike length, grain weight and grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and harvest index) of wheat by 11.4–47.8%, 21.8–39.8%, and 16.4–42.3%, respectively, while WP increased by 13.3% compared to the NI treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited irrigation reduced relative water content and chlorophyll pigments by 21.8–39.8%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- LMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- relative water content and chlorophyll pigmentse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 21.8–39.8%e0
- Comparator
- NI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results reveal that the LMI treatment caused a significant reduction in various traits related to the growth (plant height, tiller and green leaf numbers, leaf area index, and shoot dry weight), physiology (relative water content and chlorophyll pigments), and yield components (spike length, grain weight and grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and harvest index) of wheat by 11.4–47.8%, 21.8–39.8%, and 16.4–42.3%, respectively, while WP increased by 13.3% compared to the NI treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited irrigation reduced yield components by 16.4–42.3%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- LMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- spike length, grain weight and grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and harvest indexe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 16.4–42.3%e0
- Comparator
- NI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results reveal that the LMI treatment caused a significant reduction in various traits related to the growth (plant height, tiller and green leaf numbers, leaf area index, and shoot dry weight), physiology (relative water content and chlorophyll pigments), and yield components (spike length, grain weight and grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and harvest index) of wheat by 11.4–47.8%, 21.8–39.8%, and 16.4–42.3%, respectively, while WP increased by 13.3% compared to the NI treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited irrigation increased water productivity by 13.3%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- LMIe0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13.3%e0
- Comparator
- NI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results reveal that the LMI treatment caused a significant reduction in various traits related to the growth (plant height, tiller and green leaf numbers, leaf area index, and shoot dry weight), physiology (relative water content and chlorophyll pigments), and yield components (spike length, grain weight and grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and harvest index) of wheat by 11.4–47.8%, 21.8–39.8%, and 16.4–42.3%, respectively, while WP increased by 13.3% compared to the NI treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-applications increased growth traits by 0.2–23.7%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Co-A treatmentse0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 0.2–23.7%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The different Co-A treatments have shown a 0.2–23.7%, 3.6–26.7%, 2.3–21.6%, and 12.2–25.0% increase in various traits related to growth, physiology, yield, and WP, respectively, in comparison to the control treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-applications increased physiology traits by 3.6–26.7%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Co-A treatmentse0
- Outcome
- physiologye0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 3.6–26.7%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The different Co-A treatments have shown a 0.2–23.7%, 3.6–26.7%, 2.3–21.6%, and 12.2–25.0% increase in various traits related to growth, physiology, yield, and WP, respectively, in comparison to the control treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-applications increased yield by 2.3–21.6%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Co-A treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 2.3–21.6%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The different Co-A treatments have shown a 0.2–23.7%, 3.6–26.7%, 2.3–21.6%, and 12.2–25.0% increase in various traits related to growth, physiology, yield, and WP, respectively, in comparison to the control treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-applications increased water productivity by 12.2–25.0%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Co-A treatmentse0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 12.2–25.0%e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The different Co-A treatments have shown a 0.2–23.7%, 3.6–26.7%, 2.3–21.6%, and 12.2–25.0% increase in various traits related to growth, physiology, yield, and WP, respectively, in comparison to the control treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
SSA+ FSA+Mic performed best across studied traits under both irrigation conditions.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- SSA+ FSA+Mice0
- Outcome
- best results for all studied traitse0
- Qualifier
- both irrigation conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SSA+ FSA+Mic was determined as the best treatment that achieved the best results for all studied traits under both irrigation conditions”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
FSA+Mic and SSA+Mic + FSA ranked next under limited irrigation.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- FSA+Mic and SSA+Mic + FSAe0
- Outcome
- followed bye0
- Qualifier
- LMIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“followed by FSA+Mic and SSA+Mic + FSA under LMI”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
FSA+Mac ranked next under normal irrigation.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- FSA+Mace0
- Outcome
- FSA+Mac under NI conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“FSA+Mac under NI conditions”
t0“Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
cobalt atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →cobalt atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →cobalt atom · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.