Abstract
Abstract The parameters of chlorophyll α rapid fluorescence were assessed in husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa). The goal of the study was to identify differences between two subspecies of oats with respect to the control of primary energy storage processes under the influence of osmotic stress for the subsequent selection of parameters and oat-breeding strategies to increase photosynthetic productivity in early drought conditions. Plants were grown on a complete Knop’s nutrient solution; osmotic stress was created by 10% polyethylene glycol (PEG‑400), and osmotic pressure was 0.709 mPa. Fluorescence parameters were determined using a Fluor Pen FP 110/S fluorometer (Photon Systems Instruments, Czech Republic). The data was processed by principal component analysis. In husked genotypes, the four main factors were responsible for 94.2% (control) and 91.4% (stress) variability of the assessed parameters. In naked oats, three principal factors were found (90.5% of variability) in the absence of stress and four factors (97.1% variability) under stress conditions. The flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC) were controlled in naked oat by one and the same factor under stress and by two different factors in the absence of stress, whereas those in husked genotypes were by one factor in the absence of stress and by two different factors under stress. Osmotic stress led to passing the control over adsorbed (ABS/RC) and trapped (TR0/RC) energy flows from one factor to two factors in husked oats but did not affect naked oats. The parameter of efficiency of electron transfer to the primary acceptors of photosystem I (δRE) was controlled by two different factors and enhanced their effect (factor loading from 0.564 to 0.74). Under stress, the δRE parameter weakened the effect of both factors in naked genotypes (factor loading –0.625 and ‒0.705) and reduced the effect of one factor and strengthened the second factor in husked genotypes (factor loading –0.552 and 0.687).
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
In husked oats under control conditions, four main factors explained 94.2% of the variability of the assessed fluorescence parameters.
- Taxon
- oats
Avena sativae0 - Material
- husked genotypese1
- Outcome
- variability of the assessed parameterse1
- Value
- 94.2%e1
- Qualifier
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e1“In husked genotypes, the four main factors were responsible for 94.2% (control) and 91.4% (stress) variability of the assessed parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
In husked oats under stress, four main factors explained 91.4% of the variability of the assessed fluorescence parameters.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- husked genotypese1
- Outcome
- variability of the assessed parameterse1
- Value
- 91.4%e1
- Qualifier
- stresse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e1“In husked genotypes, the four main factors were responsible for 94.2% (control) and 91.4% (stress) variability of the assessed parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
In naked oats without stress, three principal factors explained 90.5% of the variability.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- naked oatse2
- Outcome
- principal factorse2
- Value
- 90.5%e2
- Qualifier
- in the absence of stresse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e2“In naked oats, three principal factors were found (90.5% of variability) in the absence of stress and four factors (97.1% variability) under stress conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
In naked oats under stress, four factors explained 97.1% of the variability.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- naked oatse2
- Outcome
- factorse2
- Value
- 97.1%e2
- Qualifier
- under stress conditionse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e2“In naked oats, three principal factors were found (90.5% of variability) in the absence of stress and four factors (97.1% variability) under stress conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
In naked oats under stress, the trapped energy and electronic transport flows were controlled by one and the same factor.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- naked oate3
- Treatment
- stresse3
- Outcome
- flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC)e3
- Qualifier
- by one and the same factore3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e3“The flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC) were controlled in naked oat by one and the same factor under stress and by two different factors in the absence of stress, whereas those in husked genotypes were by one factor in the absence of stress and by two different factors under stress”
Claim · model-written summary
In naked oats without stress, the trapped energy and electronic transport flows were controlled by two different factors.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- naked oate3
- Outcome
- flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC)e3
- Qualifier
- by two different factors in the absence of stresse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e3“The flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC) were controlled in naked oat by one and the same factor under stress and by two different factors in the absence of stress, whereas those in husked genotypes were by one factor in the absence of stress and by two different factors under stress”
Claim · model-written summary
In husked oats without stress, the trapped energy and electronic transport flows were controlled by one factor.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- husked genotypese3
- Outcome
- flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC)e3
- Qualifier
- by one factor in the absence of stresse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e3“The flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC) were controlled in naked oat by one and the same factor under stress and by two different factors in the absence of stress, whereas those in husked genotypes were by one factor in the absence of stress and by two different factors under stress”
Claim · model-written summary
In husked oats under stress, the trapped energy and electronic transport flows were controlled by two different factors.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- husked genotypese3
- Treatment
- stresse3
- Outcome
- flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC)e3
- Qualifier
- by two different factors under stresse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e3“The flows of trapped energy (TR0/RC) and electronic transport (ET0/RC) were controlled in naked oat by one and the same factor under stress and by two different factors in the absence of stress, whereas those in husked genotypes were by one factor in the absence of stress and by two different factors under stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress shifted control of the adsorbed and trapped energy flows in husked oats from one factor to two factors.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- husked oatse4
- Treatment
- Osmotic stresse4
- Outcome
- control over adsorbed (ABS/RC) and trapped (TR0/RC) energy flowse4
- Direction
- increaseinferrede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e4“Osmotic stress led to passing the control over adsorbed (ABS/RC) and trapped (TR0/RC) energy flows from one factor to two factors in husked oats but did not affect naked oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress did not change control of the adsorbed and trapped energy flows in naked oats.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- naked oatse4
- Treatment
- Osmotic stresse4
- Outcome
- control over adsorbed (ABS/RC) and trapped (TR0/RC) energy flowse4
- Direction
- did not affecte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e4“Osmotic stress led to passing the control over adsorbed (ABS/RC) and trapped (TR0/RC) energy flows from one factor to two factors in husked oats but did not affect naked oats”
Claim · model-written summary
The efficiency of electron transfer to the primary acceptors of photosystem I (δRE) was controlled by two different factors whose effect was enhanced (factor loading 0.564 to 0.74).
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Outcome
- efficiency of electron transfer to the primary acceptors of photosystem I (δRE)e5
- Value
- 0.564 to 0.74e5
- Qualifier
- enhanced their effecte5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e5“The parameter of efficiency of electron transfer to the primary acceptors of photosystem I (δRE) was controlled by two different factors and enhanced their effect (factor loading from 0.564 to 0.74)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under stress, δRE weakened the effect of both factors in naked oat genotypes (factor loadings –0.625 and ‒0.705).
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- naked genotypese6
- Treatment
- Under stresse6
- Outcome
- effect of both factorse6
- Direction
- weakenede6
- Value
- –0.625 and ‒0.705e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e6“Under stress, the δRE parameter weakened the effect of both factors in naked genotypes (factor loading –0.625 and ‒0.705)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under stress, δRE reduced the effect of one factor and strengthened the second factor in husked oat genotypes (factor loadings –0.552 and 0.687).
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Material
- husked genotypese7
- Treatment
- Under stresse6
- Outcome
- effect of one factore7
- Direction
- reducede7
- Value
- –0.552 and 0.687e7
- Qualifier
- strengthened the second factore7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“husked oats (A. sativa subsp. sativa) and naked oats (A. sativa subsp. nudisativa)”
e6“Under stress, the δRE parameter weakened the effect of both factors in naked genotypes (factor loading –0.625 and ‒0.705)”
e7“reduced the effect of one factor and strengthened the second factor in husked genotypes (factor loading –0.552 and 0.687)”
The same questions in other papers
drought · control · Avena sativa (oats)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
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.