Abstract
Climate change is leading to increases in extreme weather events, notably increasing both droughts and floods, which undermine food security. Although each stress individually has been well studied, little is known about the response of cereals to successive water stresses, condition that often occurs in real-world scenarios. To address this gap, we have compared physiological responses of wheat and barley cultivars to cycles of drought and flooding. We show that these species show different responses to each other and that successive stresses result in different responses to single stresses. Plants were subjected to control, drought or flooding treatments for 15 days. Following that, previously stressed plants were exposed to a further stress – drought followed by flooding (D-F) or flooding followed by drought (F-D) for a further 15 days. These cereals showed contrasting responses both to drought or flooding alone and to successive stresses (D-F or F-D). Barley retained photosynthetic capacity when exposed to single- drought or flooding, whereas wheat responded to both stresses with significant declines in CO 2 assimilation capacity by 41% and 31% in response to drought or flooding, respectively -primarily due to stomatal closure. However, the first exposure to water stress impacts the inhibition of photosynthesis during subsequent stress. The effect of subsequent water stress – drought or flood –was continued and aggravated by the previous stress in wheat. Importantly, non-stomatal factors were induced, which reduced Photosystem II efficiency (62% and 49%) and chlorophyll content (35% and 47%) in wheat under D-F and F-D stress. By contrast, barley retained its photosynthetic capacity under D-F stress by acclimating, with 41% reduced shoot growth, while F-D treatment induced abnormal stomatal development. Both treatments resulted in the accumulation of carbon in tissues. Overall, we conclude that sensitivity to a stress is increased by the exposure to a previous stress, with F-D stress having the largest effect, while barley is relatively more tolerant than wheat highlighting it as the more robust cereal crop under fluctuating water 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Barley retained photosynthetic capacity under single drought or flooding.
- Taxon
- Barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree0 - Treatment
- single- drought or floodinge0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic capacitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Barley retained photosynthetic capacity when exposed to single- drought or flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced wheat CO2 assimilation capacity by 41%.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- droughte0
- Outcome
- CO 2 assimilation capacitye0
- Direction
- declinese0
- Value
- 41%e0
- Qualifier
- primarily due to stomatal closuree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat responded to both stresses with significant declines in CO 2 assimilation capacity by 41% and 31% in response to drought or flooding, respectively -primarily due to stomatal closure.”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding reduced wheat CO2 assimilation capacity by 31%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- floodinge0
- Outcome
- CO 2 assimilation capacitye0
- Direction
- declinese0
- Value
- 31%e0
- Qualifier
- primarily due to stomatal closuree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat responded to both stresses with significant declines in CO 2 assimilation capacity by 41% and 31% in response to drought or flooding, respectively -primarily due to stomatal closure.”
Claim · model-written summary
Prior water stress aggravated inhibition of wheat photosynthesis during subsequent drought or flooding.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- previous stresse0
- Outcome
- effect of subsequent water stresse0
- Direction
- aggravatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of subsequent water stress – drought or flood –was continued and aggravated by the previous stress in wheat.”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought then flooding reduced wheat Photosystem II efficiency by 62%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- D-Fe0
- Outcome
- Photosystem II efficiencye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 62%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“non-stomatal factors were induced, which reduced Photosystem II efficiency (62% and 49%) and chlorophyll content (35% and 47%) in wheat under D-F and F-D stress.”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding then drought reduced wheat Photosystem II efficiency by 49%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- F-De0
- Outcome
- Photosystem II efficiencye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 49%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“non-stomatal factors were induced, which reduced Photosystem II efficiency (62% and 49%) and chlorophyll content (35% and 47%) in wheat under D-F and F-D stress.”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought then flooding reduced wheat chlorophyll content by 35%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced Photosystem II efficiency (62% and 49%) and chlorophyll content (35% and 47%) in wheat under D-F and F-D stress.”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding then drought reduced wheat chlorophyll content by 47%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced Photosystem II efficiency (62% and 49%) and chlorophyll content (35% and 47%) in wheat under D-F and F-D stress.”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley retained photosynthetic capacity under drought then flooding.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Treatment
- D-F stresse0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic capacitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“barley retained its photosynthetic capacity under D-F stress by acclimating, with 41% reduced shoot growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought then flooding reduced barley shoot growth by 41%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“barley retained its photosynthetic capacity under D-F stress by acclimating, with 41% reduced shoot growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Flooding then drought induced abnormal stomatal development in barley.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaret0
- Treatment
- F-D treatmente0
- Outcome
- abnormal stomatal developmente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F-D treatment induced abnormal stomatal development.”
t0“in wheat and barley”
Claim · model-written summary
Both sequential treatments caused carbon accumulation in cereal tissues.
- Taxon
- wheat and barleyHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Both treatmentse0
- Outcome
- accumulation of carbon in tissuese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both treatments resulted in the accumulation of carbon in tissues.”
t0“in wheat and barley”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →flooding · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
41 papers more in this group
See all 45 papers →drought · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
89 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →drought · physiology: pigments · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
204 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
242 papers more in this group
See all 246 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.