Abstract
A study was done to determine the effects of vesicular‐arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) colonization on drought acclimation of host plants. Safflower ( Carthamus tinctorius L. cv. S555) and wheat ( Triticum aestivum L. cv. Anza) were grown under environmentally controlled conditions with or without the VAM fungus, Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerd., and were either acclimated (by pre‐exposing plants to a 10–11 day drought period) or unacclimated to drought. Plants from all treatments were then exposed to drought for 9 days, and plant water status and root water uptake were measured. To minimize interactions between drought and P uptake, growth periods were adjusted so that acclimated and unacclimated plants were similar in size when measurements were made. When wheat was acclimated to drought, osmotic adjustment occurred (leaf solute potentials of leaf tissue rehydrated to full turgor were approximately 0.5 MPa lower in acclimated than unacclimated plants); in safflower, osmotic adjustment was minimal when plants were acclimated. Consequently, acclimated wheat plants were able to tolerate drought better than unacclimated plants, and maintained higher leaf water potentials and relative water contents as soil water was depleted. For both safflower and wheat, acclimated plants had higher water use efficiency, and therefore produced more biomass when water availability was limited, than unacclimated plants. However, mycorrhizal colonization did not affect osmotic adjustment, plant water status, water use efficiency or water uptake in either plant species, and therefore had no effect on drought acclimation or resistance.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Acclimated wheat had leaf solute potential approximately 0.5 MPa lower than unacclimated wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- acclimatede1
- Outcome
- leaf solute potentialse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 0.5 MPae1
- Comparator
- unacclimated plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L. cv. Anza)”
e1“leaf solute potentials of leaf tissue rehydrated to full turgor were approximately 0.5 MPa lower in acclimated than unacclimated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Safflower showed minimal osmotic adjustment after drought acclimation.
- Taxon
- safflower
Carthamus tinctoriuse1 - Treatment
- acclimatede1
- Outcome
- osmotic adjustmente1
- Direction
- minimale1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Safflower ( Carthamus tinctorius L. cv. S555)”
e1“in safflower, osmotic adjustment was minimal when plants were acclimated”
Claim · model-written summary
Acclimated wheat maintained higher leaf water potential and relative water content during soil drying.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- acclimatede0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentials and relative water contentse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- unacclimated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“acclimated wheat plants were able to tolerate drought better than unacclimated plants, and maintained higher leaf water potentials and relative water contents as soil water was depleted”
Claim · model-written summary
Acclimated safflower had higher water use efficiency than unacclimated plants.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriuse0
- Treatment
- acclimatede0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- unacclimated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both safflower and wheat, acclimated plants had higher water use efficiency, and therefore produced more biomass when water availability was limited, than unacclimated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Acclimated wheat had higher water use efficiency than unacclimated plants.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- acclimatede0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- unacclimated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both safflower and wheat, acclimated plants had higher water use efficiency, and therefore produced more biomass when water availability was limited, than unacclimated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Acclimated safflower produced more biomass under limited water.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriuse0
- Treatment
- acclimatede0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- unacclimated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both safflower and wheat, acclimated plants had higher water use efficiency, and therefore produced more biomass when water availability was limited, than unacclimated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Acclimated wheat produced more biomass under limited water.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- acclimatede0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- unacclimated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both safflower and wheat, acclimated plants had higher water use efficiency, and therefore produced more biomass when water availability was limited, than unacclimated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal colonization did not affect drought-related water traits in safflower.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriuse0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal colonizatione1
- Interactor
- Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerd.e2symbiont
- Outcome
- osmotic adjustment, plant water status, water use efficiency or water uptakee1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both safflower and wheat”
e1“mycorrhizal colonization did not affect osmotic adjustment, plant water status, water use efficiency or water uptake in either plant species”
e2“Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerd.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal colonization did not affect drought-related water traits in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal colonizatione1
- Interactor
- Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerd.e2symbiont
- Outcome
- osmotic adjustment, plant water status, water use efficiency or water uptakee1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For both safflower and wheat”
e1“mycorrhizal colonization did not affect osmotic adjustment, plant water status, water use efficiency or water uptake in either plant species”
e2“Glomus etunicatum Becker and Gerd.”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mycorrhiza · physiology: water · Carthamus tinctorius (safflower)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
infection · physiology: water · Carthamus tinctorius (safflower)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
infection · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
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.