Abstract
Field experiments on the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain evaluated drip irrigation's effect on two high-gluten wheat varieties (ZM886, ZM998) under five treatments: rain-fed (W0) and drip irrigation (300-W1, 450-W2, 600-W3, 750-W4 m³ ha⁻¹). Compared to W0 (7855.87 kg ha⁻¹), irrigation increased grain yield by 5.37–12.45 % (ZM886) and 7.01–17.19 % (ZM998).Dough stability time decreased in ZM886 (4.00–24.25 %) across all irrigation levels versus W0. For ZM998, it declined under W3 (4.98 %) and W4 (14.29 %) but increased under W1 (7.00 %) and W2 (3.36 %). Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %); ZM998 saw increases under W1 (19.89 %) and W2 (4.18 %) but decreases under W3 (15.01 %) and W4 (21.99 %). Soluble glutenin protein (SGP) to glutenin macropolymer (GMP) conversion occurred at 26 days post-anthesis under W0; higher drip irrigation delayed high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS) detection. Irrigation generally reduced GMP, SGP, disulfide bonds (-S-S-), free thiol groups (free -SH), and HMW-GS, with the largest reductions under W4 (e.g., GMP: −34.00 % ZM886, −39.38 % ZM998). Conversely, moderate irrigation (W1) increased free -SH (3.25 % ZM886, 4.53 % ZM998) and -S-S- (8.54 % ZM886, 9.33 % ZM998), and slightly increased GMP in ZM886 (2.23 %) and SGP in ZM998 (0.57 %).Moderate irrigation (W1, 300 m³ ha⁻¹, WUE 6.10–7.55 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) optimized dough stability time and tensile resistance by influencing SGP depolymerization, HMW-GS content, and GMP modulation, achieving the best balance between dough quality and yield for water-efficient cultivation. • The presence of glutenin macropolymers was first detected in grains 28 days after anthesis. • A single drip irrigation < 450 m³ ha- 1 improves wheat quality by increasing HMW-GS and GMP content. • HMW-GS had a greater effect on wheat processing quality than GMP.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased grain yield of ZM886 by 5.37–12.45 % relative to rain-fed W0.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Material
- ZM886e1
- Treatment
- irrigatione1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 5.37–12.45 %e1
- Qualifier
- 7855.87 kg ha⁻¹e1
- Comparator
- W0e1
- Setting
- Huang-Huai-Hai Plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field experiments on the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain evaluated drip irrigation's effect on two high-gluten wheat varieties (ZM886, ZM998) under five treatments: rain-fed (W0) and drip irrigation (300-W1, 450-W2, 600-W3, 750-W4 m³ ha⁻¹)”
e1“Compared to W0 (7855.87 kg ha⁻¹), irrigation increased grain yield by 5.37–12.45 % (ZM886) and 7.01–17.19 % (ZM998)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased grain yield of ZM998 by 7.01–17.19 % relative to rain-fed W0.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e1
- Treatment
- irrigatione1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 7.01–17.19 %e1
- Qualifier
- 7855.87 kg ha⁻¹e1
- Comparator
- W0e1
- Setting
- Huang-Huai-Hai Plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field experiments on the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain evaluated drip irrigation's effect on two high-gluten wheat varieties (ZM886, ZM998) under five treatments: rain-fed (W0) and drip irrigation (300-W1, 450-W2, 600-W3, 750-W4 m³ ha⁻¹)”
e1“Compared to W0 (7855.87 kg ha⁻¹), irrigation increased grain yield by 5.37–12.45 % (ZM886) and 7.01–17.19 % (ZM998)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation decreased dough stability time of ZM886 by 4.00–24.25 % across all irrigation levels.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM886e2
- Treatment
- all irrigation levelse2
- Outcome
- Dough stability timee2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Value
- 4.00–24.25 %e2
- Comparator
- W0e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Dough stability time decreased in ZM886 (4.00–24.25 %) across all irrigation levels versus W0”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W3, dough stability time of ZM998 declined by 4.98 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e3
- Treatment
- W3e3
- Outcome
- Dough stability timee2
- Direction
- declinede3
- Value
- 4.98 %e3
- Comparator
- W0e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Dough stability time decreased in ZM886 (4.00–24.25 %) across all irrigation levels versus W0”
e3“For ZM998, it declined under W3 (4.98 %) and W4 (14.29 %) but increased under W1 (7.00 %) and W2 (3.36 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W4, dough stability time of ZM998 declined by 14.29 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e3
- Treatment
- W4e3
- Outcome
- Dough stability timee2
- Direction
- declinede3
- Value
- 14.29 %e3
- Comparator
- W0e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Dough stability time decreased in ZM886 (4.00–24.25 %) across all irrigation levels versus W0”
e3“For ZM998, it declined under W3 (4.98 %) and W4 (14.29 %) but increased under W1 (7.00 %) and W2 (3.36 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W1, dough stability time of ZM998 increased by 7.00 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e3
- Treatment
- W1e3
- Outcome
- Dough stability timee2
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 7.00 %e3
- Comparator
- W0e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Dough stability time decreased in ZM886 (4.00–24.25 %) across all irrigation levels versus W0”
e3“For ZM998, it declined under W3 (4.98 %) and W4 (14.29 %) but increased under W1 (7.00 %) and W2 (3.36 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W2, dough stability time of ZM998 increased by 3.36 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e3
- Treatment
- W2e3
- Outcome
- Dough stability timee2
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 3.36 %e3
- Comparator
- W0e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Dough stability time decreased in ZM886 (4.00–24.25 %) across all irrigation levels versus W0”
e3“For ZM998, it declined under W3 (4.98 %) and W4 (14.29 %) but increased under W1 (7.00 %) and W2 (3.36 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W1, dough tensile resistance of ZM886 increased by 5.25 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM886e4
- Treatment
- W1e4
- Outcome
- Dough tensile resistancee4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 5.25 %e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W2 to W4, dough tensile resistance of ZM886 decreased by 2.37–36.93 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM886e4
- Treatment
- W2-W4e4
- Outcome
- Dough tensile resistancee4
- Direction
- decreasede4
- Value
- 2.37–36.93 %e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W1, dough tensile resistance of ZM998 increased by 19.89 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e5
- Treatment
- W1e5
- Outcome
- tensile resistancee4
- Direction
- increasese5
- Value
- 19.89 %e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %)”
e5“ZM998 saw increases under W1 (19.89 %) and W2 (4.18 %) but decreases under W3 (15.01 %) and W4 (21.99 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W2, dough tensile resistance of ZM998 increased by 4.18 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e5
- Treatment
- W2e5
- Outcome
- tensile resistancee4
- Direction
- increasese5
- Value
- 4.18 %e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %)”
e5“ZM998 saw increases under W1 (19.89 %) and W2 (4.18 %) but decreases under W3 (15.01 %) and W4 (21.99 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W3, dough tensile resistance of ZM998 decreased by 15.01 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e5
- Treatment
- W3e5
- Outcome
- tensile resistancee4
- Direction
- decreasese5
- Value
- 15.01 %e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %)”
e5“ZM998 saw increases under W1 (19.89 %) and W2 (4.18 %) but decreases under W3 (15.01 %) and W4 (21.99 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W4, dough tensile resistance of ZM998 decreased by 21.99 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e5
- Treatment
- W4e5
- Outcome
- tensile resistancee4
- Direction
- decreasese5
- Value
- 21.99 %e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Dough tensile resistance increased in ZM886 under W1 (5.25 %) but decreased under W2-W4 (2.37–36.93 %)”
e5“ZM998 saw increases under W1 (19.89 %) and W2 (4.18 %) but decreases under W3 (15.01 %) and W4 (21.99 %)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W4, GMP of ZM886 showed the largest reduction, −34.00 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM886e0
- Treatment
- W4e0
- Outcome
- GMPe0
- Direction
- largest reductionse0
- Value
- −34.00 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with the largest reductions under W4 (e.g., GMP: −34.00 % ZM886, −39.38 % ZM998)”
e1“Irrigation generally reduced GMP, SGP, disulfide bonds (-S-S-), free thiol groups (free -SH), and HMW-GS”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Under W4, GMP of ZM998 showed the largest reduction, −39.38 %.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM998e0
- Treatment
- W4e0
- Outcome
- GMPe0
- Direction
- largest reductionse0
- Value
- −39.38 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with the largest reductions under W4 (e.g., GMP: −34.00 % ZM886, −39.38 % ZM998)”
e1“Irrigation generally reduced GMP, SGP, disulfide bonds (-S-S-), free thiol groups (free -SH), and HMW-GS”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate irrigation (W1) increased free -SH of ZM886 by 3.25 %, with further increases in disulfide bonds and free thiol groups in both varieties.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ZM886e2
- Treatment
- moderate irrigation (W1)e2
- Outcome
- free -SHe2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 3.25 %e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“moderate irrigation (W1) increased free -SH (3.25 % ZM886, 4.53 % ZM998) and -S-S- (8.54 % ZM886, 9.33 % ZM998)”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble glutenin protein to glutenin macropolymer conversion occurred at 26 days post-anthesis under rain-fed conditions.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Soluble glutenin protein (SGP) to glutenin macropolymer (GMP) conversione6
- Qualifier
- 26 days post-anthesise6
- Comparator
- W0e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Soluble glutenin protein (SGP) to glutenin macropolymer (GMP) conversion occurred at 26 days post-anthesis under W0”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher drip irrigation delayed the detection of high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- higher drip irrigatione7
- Outcome
- high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS) detectione7
- Direction
- delayede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“higher drip irrigation delayed high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS) detection”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate irrigation (W1, 300 m³ ha⁻¹) is recommended for the best balance between dough quality and yield in water-efficient wheat cultivation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- best balance between dough quality and yielde3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Moderate irrigation (W1, 300 m³ ha⁻¹, WUE 6.10–7.55 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) optimized dough stability time and tensile resistance”
e3“achieving the best balance between dough quality and yield for water-efficient cultivation”
t0“wheat grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation generally reduced GMP, SGP, disulfide bonds, free thiol groups and HMW-GS.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Irrigatione1
- Outcome
- GMP, SGP, disulfide bonds (-S-S-), free thiol groups (free -SH), and HMW-GSe1
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irrigation generally reduced GMP, SGP, disulfide bonds (-S-S-), free thiol groups (free -SH), and HMW-GS”
t0“wheat grain”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
76 papers more in this group
See all 80 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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.