Paper · 2024 · Heliyon

Assessment of the salt tolerance of diverse bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes during the early growth stage under hydroponic culture conditions

Md Mustafa Khan; Md Mahbubur Rahman; Md Mahamudul Hasan; et al.

11
claims
20
verbatim quotes
14
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Objectives Soil salinity affects the growth of crop plants, leading to reduced productivity, and is a major challenge for wheat production worldwide. Various adaptations and mitigation approaches in combination with tolerant wheat genotypes can be useful for the sustainability of crop production in saline environments. However, the development of salt-tolerant wheat genotypes is one of the best and most efficient solutions for obtaining desirable yields. Considering these issues, an investigation was carried out under hydroponic nutrient culture conditions to assess the genetic variability and selection of salt-tolerant wheat genotypes by categorizing inequitable morphophysiological and genetic variability as well as multivariate analysis. Methods To meet the objectives of this study, 100 wheat genotypes were tested hydroponically in 0 (control) and 15 dS m −1 salt solutions. Conclusion For all the wheat genotypes grown under saline conditions, the shoot length (SL), root length (RL), shoot fresh weight (SFW), root fresh weight (RFW), total fresh weight (TFW), shoot dry weight (SDW), root dry weight (RDW), and total dry weight (TDW) decreased significantly. Furthermore, significant variation was observed among the genotypes in terms of their characteristics only under saline conditions. In the case of genetic diversity analysis, a high genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV), genetic advance in the percentage of the mean (GAM) and high heritability (h 2 b) were recorded for all tested wheat genotypes based on the SDW, RDW and TDW. Correlation analysis for both genotypic and phenotypic relationships revealed strong positive correlations for TDW, SDW, TFW and SFW. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that TDW, TFW, SDW, and SFW were the most discriminative variables for the wheat genotypes, which was confirmed by discriminant function analysis (DFA). PCA-biplot analysis also revealed significant positive correlations between SDW and SFW and between TDW and TFW. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed for ten clusters based on the relative performance of the genotypes, where the genotypes were characterized into salt-tolerant, medium-salt-tolerant, medium-salt-susceptible and salt-susceptible groups. Among the genotypes, G11, G25 and G29 under cluster VII were categorized as salt tolerant based on their outstanding performance in terms of characteristics only under saline conditions. D 2 analysis proved that the wheat genotypes of this cluster were highly divergent from the other cluster genotypes; as a result, these genotypes might be utilized as parents in the development of salt-tolerant wheat genotypes. The current study concluded that SDW and TDW could be employed as criteria for selecting and defining salt-tolerant genotypes during the early growth stage of wheat.

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 resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Salinity significantly reduced eight shoot and root growth and weight traits.

Treatment
saline conditionse1
Outcome
shoot length (SL), root length (RL), shoot fresh weight (SFW)e0
Direction
decreasede0

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

e0

“the shoot length (SL), root length (RL), shoot fresh weight (SFW), root fresh weight (RFW), total fresh weight (TFW), shoot dry weight (SDW), root dry weight (RDW), and total dry weight (TDW) decreased significantly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 959–1174 · show in text ↑
t0

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“genotypes grown under saline conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–957 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Genotypes varied significantly in their traits under salinity.

Outcome
variatione0
Qualifier
only under saline conditionse0

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

“significant variation was observed among the genotypes in terms of their characteristics only under saline conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1306 · show in text ↑
t0

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry weight traits had high genetic variation, genetic advance and heritability.

Outcome
genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV), genetic advance in the percentage of the mean (GAM) and high heritability (h 2 b)e0
Qualifier
SDW, RDW and TDWe0

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

“a high genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV), phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV), genetic advance in the percentage of the mean (GAM) and high heritability (h 2 b) were recorded for all tested wheat genotypes based on the SDW, RDW and TDW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1351–1599 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total and shoot dry and fresh weights showed strong positive correlations.

Organ / stage
shoote1
Outcome
correlations for TDW, SDW, TFW and SFWe0
Direction
positivee0

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

“strong positive correlations for TDW, SDW, TFW and SFW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1679–1733 · show in text ↑
t0

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“shoot dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1077–1093 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PCA and discriminant analysis identified four weight traits as most discriminative.

Outcome
most discriminative variablese0
Comparator
wheat genotypese0

Not reportedValue

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

“TDW, TFW, SDW, and SFW were the most discriminative variables for the wheat genotypes, which was confirmed by discriminant function analysis (DFA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1784–1930 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PCA biplots found positive SDW SFW and TDW TFW correlations.

Outcome
correlations between SDW and SFW and between TDW and TFWe0
Direction
positivee0
Setting
hydroponic culture conditionst1

Not reportedMaterial

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

“significant positive correlations between SDW and SFW and between TDW and TFW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1966–2043 · show in text ↑
t0

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–78 · show in text ↑
t1

“hydroponic culture conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 125–154 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Clustering separated genotypes into four salt tolerance classes.

Outcome
salt-tolerant, medium-salt-tolerant, medium-salt-susceptible and salt-susceptible groupse0
Comparator
genotypese0

Not reportedValue

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

“genotypes were characterized into salt-tolerant, medium-salt-tolerant, medium-salt-susceptible and salt-susceptible groups”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2168–2290 · show in text ↑
t0

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

G11, G25 and G29 were classified as salt tolerant.

Material
G11, G25 and G29e0
Outcome
categorized as salt tolerante0

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

“G11, G25 and G29 under cluster VII were categorized as salt tolerant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2313–2381 · show in text ↑
t0

“bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cluster VII genotypes were highly divergent from other clusters.

Outcome
highly divergente0
Comparator
other cluster genotypese0

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 genotypes of this cluster were highly divergent from the other cluster genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2508–2594 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose G11, G25 and G29 as parents for salt tolerance breeding.

Outcome
utilized as parents in the development of salt-tolerant wheat genotypese0

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

“these genotypes might be utilized as parents in the development of salt-tolerant wheat genotypes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2609–2705 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose shoot and total dry weight as early selection criteria.

Outcome
SDW and TDW could be employed as criteria for selecting and defining salt-tolerant genotypese0

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

“SDW and TDW could be employed as criteria for selecting and defining salt-tolerant genotypes during the early growth stage of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2740–2871 · show in text ↑

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

377 papers: 49 positive, 328 negative or no effect

327 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

373 papers more in this group

See all 377 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.