Paper · 2024 · Frontiers in Agronomy

Assessing the impact of turnip yellows virus infection and drought on canola performance: implications under a climate change scenario

Clara Lago; Alberto Fereres; Aránzazu Moreno; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Introduction Canola ( Brassica napus L.) is one of the most important crops worldwide. Turnip yellows virus (TuYV), transmitted by aphids, is one of the most damaging viruses affecting canola crops and is challenging to control. With the prediction of more intense and prolonged drought events due to future climate change, an additional factor may extensively impact the epidemiology of plant diseases. This study aimed to understand the impact of drought on canola plants infected with TuYV and to explore the relationship between virus infection and drought. Methods Two glasshouse experiments were conducted: 1. Competition: Four plants (two infected, two non-infected) were grown in the same pot. 2. No Competition: One plant was grown per pot. In both experiments, infected and non-infected canola plants were exposed to well-watered conditions, water stress (simulated drought), and terminal drought. Various plant traits were recorded, including biomass, leaf area, height, number of leaves, chlorophyll content, water use efficiency, and virus symptom expression. Results Both virus infection and water stress reduced dry biomass, leaf area, and height. Virus infection alone reduced canola biomass by up to 49% compared to non-infected, well-watered controls. Under water stress or terminal drought, the biomass of TuYV-infected plants was further reduced by up to 71% and 65%, respectively. Virus infection also reduced the number of leaves, although water treatment alone did not. Chlorophyll content was higher in water-stressed and terminal drought plants compared to well-watered ones, while virus infection reduced chlorophyll content. The impact of drought and virus infection was more pronounced when plants were under competition. Discussion Given the expected increase in prolonged and frequent droughts in many canola-growing regions due to climate change, a significant detrimental effect on canola production due to the combined influence of drought and TuYV is anticipated. This study underscores the need for developing mitigation strategies to protect canola production in a changing climate.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus infection and water stress each reduced canola dry biomass, leaf area, and height.

Treatment
virus infection and water stresse0
Outcome
dry biomass, leaf area, and heighte0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Both virus infection and water stress reduced dry biomass, leaf area, and height.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1081–1162 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus infection alone reduced canola biomass by up to 49% versus non-infected, well-watered controls.

Treatment
Virus infectione0
Interactor
Viruse0pathogen
Outcome
canola biomasse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
up to 49%e0
Comparator
non-infected, well-watered controlse0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Virus infection alone reduced canola biomass by up to 49% compared to non-infected, well-watered controls.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1163–1269 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under water stress, infected canola biomass was further reduced by up to 71%.

Treatment
water stresse0
Interactor
TuYVe0pathogen
Outcome
biomass of TuYV-infected plantse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
up to 71%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Under water stress or terminal drought, the biomass of TuYV-infected plants was further reduced by up to 71% and 65%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1270–1401 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under terminal drought, infected canola biomass was further reduced by up to 65%.

Treatment
terminal droughte0
Interactor
TuYVe0pathogen
Outcome
biomass of TuYV-infected plantse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
65%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Under water stress or terminal drought, the biomass of TuYV-infected plants was further reduced by up to 71% and 65%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1270–1401 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus infection reduced the number of canola leaves.

Treatment
Virus infectione0
Outcome
number of leavese0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Virus infection also reduced the number of leaves, although water treatment alone did not.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1402–1492 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water treatment alone did not reduce canola leaf number.

Treatment
water treatment alonee0
Outcome
number of leavese0
Direction
did note0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Virus infection also reduced the number of leaves, although water treatment alone did not.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1402–1492 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water stress and terminal drought increased canola chlorophyll content relative to well-watered plants.

Treatment
water-stressed and terminal droughte0
Outcome
Chlorophyll contente0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
well-watered onese0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“Chlorophyll content was higher in water-stressed and terminal drought plants compared to well-watered ones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1493–1599 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus infection reduced canola chlorophyll content.

Treatment
virus infectione0
Outcome
chlorophyll contente0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“virus infection reduced chlorophyll content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1607–1651 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Competition made the joint impact of drought and virus infection on canola more pronounced.

Treatment
drought and virus infectione0
Outcome
impact of drought and virus infectione0
Direction
more pronouncede0
Qualifier
under competitione0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–76 · show in text ↑
e0

“The impact of drought and virus infection was more pronounced when plants were under competition.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1652–1749 · show in text ↑

drought · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

63 papers: 11 positive, 52 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

infection · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 3 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

irrigation · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 8 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

infection · physiology: pigments · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 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.