drought · Physiology: photosynthesis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)
31 claims from these papers; 9 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 4
4 pairs of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Drought effect on photosynthetic activity, osmolyte accumulation and membrane integrity of two Cicer arietinum genotypes (2010)
decreaseWater stress reduced stomatal conductance and net photosynthetic rate in both chickpea genotypes.
Effect of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars (2010)increaseUnder drought, photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance were higher than under control.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - PSII Photochemistry and Antioxidant Responses of a Chickpea Variety Exposed to Drought (2008)
decreaseFrom day five, drought significantly reduced PSII efficiency, energy trapping and electron transport.
Effect of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics, phenolic compounds and radical scavenging activities in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in hydroponic conditions (2013)no changeDrought did not significantly affect PSII quantum yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics, phenolic compounds and radical scavenging activities in different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes in hydroponic conditions (2013)
no changeDrought did not significantly affect PSII quantum yield.
PSII Photochemistry and Antioxidant Responses of a Chickpea Variety Exposed to Drought (2008)decreaseFrom day five of drought, chickpea PSII quantum efficiency, energy trapping, and electron transport rate decreased significantly.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers → - Effect of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars (2010)
increaseUnder drought, photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance were higher than under control.
Exogenous application of potassium improves the drought tolerance in chickpea (2020)decreaseDrought impaired chickpea photosynthetic attributes, transpiration rate and chlorophyll contents.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
9 citations between these papers: 4 on the same side, 5 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 4
- positive
- no effect
- negative
- negative
Effect of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars · 2010
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 15
Discrimination Against 13CO2 in Leaves, Pod Walls, and Seeds of Water-stressed Chickpea · 2000
- negative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
PSII Photochemistry and Antioxidant Responses of a Chickpea Variety Exposed to Drought · 2008
- negative
- negative
PSII Photochemistry and Antioxidant Responses of a Chickpea Variety Exposed to Drought · 2008
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
Exogenous application of potassium improves the drought tolerance in chickpea · 2020
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.