Paper · 1998 · Crop Science

Evaluating Wheat Cultivars for Waterlogging Tolerance

M. E. Musgrave; N. Ding

15
claims
36
verbatim quotes
78
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Waterlogging is a serious environmental stress on winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) grown in the Gulf Coast region. We hypothesized that waterlogging tolerance differs in currently available lines and cultivars and that suitability of physiological parameters to distinguish yield responses could be evaluated. Three types of studies were conducted: a 2‐yr greenhouse study of eight cultivars, a 4‐yr irrigated field study of 20 cultivars and breeding lines, and a 3‐yr field study of six cultivars under rain‐excluding shelters which allowed comparison of performance under waterlogged and well‐drained conditions. In the rainshelter study, waterlogging caused a 45% decrease in grain weight, resulting from a 45% decrease in number of kernels and a 5% decrease in kernel weight. Cultivars differed for grain yield under waterlogged conditions in the field ( P = 0.1), and Coker 9877 and line LA 862A16‐3‐3‐X yielded 32 and 33% above the mean, respectively. Greenhouse measures of photosynthesis under waterlogging were weakly predictive of yield ( r 2 = 0.61) and correlated to measures under well‐drained conditions ( r 2 = 0.87). Yield was well correlated with biomass ( r 2 = 0.84) and root mineral content (Fe + Mn + P) ( r 2 = 0.94). Waterlogged yields × cultivar did not correlate with yield under well‐drained conditions ( r 2 = 0.14) and the same differential response to waterlogging was shown for biomass and root mineral content. The negative correlation between root mineral content and yield was attributed to processes involved in the formation of a mineral plaque on the surface of the wheat roots. This emphasizes the need to explore differences in root function when selecting wheat lines for enhanced waterlogging tolerance.

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 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging decreased grain weight by 45%.

Treatment
waterlogginge0
Outcome
grain weighte0
Direction
decreasee0
Value
45%e0
Comparator
well‐drained conditionse1

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“waterlogging caused a 45% decrease in grain weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–695 · show in text ↑
e1

“waterlogged and well‐drained conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–617 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging decreased kernel number by 45%.

Treatment
waterlogginge1
Outcome
number of kernelse0
Direction
decreasee0
Value
45%e0
Comparator
well‐drained conditionse2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a 45% decrease in number of kernels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–747 · show in text ↑
e1

“waterlogging caused”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–664 · show in text ↑
e2

“waterlogged and well‐drained conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–617 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging decreased kernel weight by 5%.

Treatment
waterlogginge1
Outcome
kernel weighte0
Direction
decreasee0
Value
5%e0
Comparator
well‐drained conditionse2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a 5% decrease in kernel weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 752–782 · show in text ↑
e1

“waterlogging caused”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–664 · show in text ↑
e2

“waterlogged and well‐drained conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–617 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivars differed in waterlogged field grain yield.

Material
Cultivarse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
differede0
Setting
in the fielde0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars differed for grain yield under waterlogged conditions in the field ( P = 0.1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–871 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Coker 9877 yielded 32% above the mean.

Material
Coker 9877e0
Outcome
yieldede0
Direction
abovee0
Value
32e1
Comparator
the meane0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Coker 9877 and line LA 862A16‐3‐3‐X yielded 32 and 33% above the mean, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 877–960 · show in text ↑
e1

“32 and 33%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 921–931 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

LA 862A16‐3‐3‐X yielded 33% above the mean.

Material
LA 862A16‐3‐3‐Xe0
Outcome
yieldede0
Direction
abovee0
Value
33%e0
Comparator
the meane0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Coker 9877 and line LA 862A16‐3‐3‐X yielded 32 and 33% above the mean, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 877–960 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Greenhouse photosynthesis under waterlogging weakly predicted yield.

Treatment
waterlogginge0
Outcome
yielde0
Value
r 2 = 0.61e0
Qualifier
weakly predictivee0
Setting
Greenhousee0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Greenhouse measures of photosynthesis under waterlogging were weakly predictive of yield ( r 2 = 0.61)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 962–1064 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Photosynthesis under waterlogging correlated with well-drained measures.

Treatment
waterlogginge1
Outcome
measurese0
Value
r 2 = 0.87e0
Comparator
well‐drained conditionse0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“correlated to measures under well‐drained conditions ( r 2 = 0.87)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1135 · show in text ↑
e1

“photosynthesis under waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 985–1018 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield correlated with biomass.

Treatment
waterlogginge1
Outcome
Yielde0
Value
r 2 = 0.84e0
Qualifier
biomasse0

Not reportedOrgan / stageDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yield was well correlated with biomass ( r 2 = 0.84)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1137–1189 · show in text ↑
e1

“the same differential response to waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1351–1397 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield correlated with root mineral content.

Organ / stage
roote0
Compound
Fe + Mn + Pe0
Outcome
Yielde0
Value
r 2 = 0.94e0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yield was well correlated with biomass ( r 2 = 0.84) and root mineral content (Fe + Mn + P) ( r 2 = 0.94)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1137–1242 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogged cultivar yields did not correlate with well-drained yields.

Outcome
Waterlogged yieldse0
Value
r 2 = 0.14e0
Comparator
yield under well‐drained conditionse0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Waterlogged yields × cultivar did not correlate with yield under well‐drained conditions ( r 2 = 0.14)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1244–1346 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biomass showed the same differential response to waterlogging.

Treatment
waterlogginge0
Outcome
biomasse0
Direction
differential responsee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the same differential response to waterlogging was shown for biomass and root mineral content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1351–1444 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root mineral content showed the same differential response to waterlogging.

Organ / stage
roote0
Treatment
waterlogginge0
Outcome
root mineral contente0
Direction
differential responsee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the same differential response to waterlogging was shown for biomass and root mineral content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1351–1444 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The negative root mineral content-yield correlation was attributed to mineral plaque formation.

Outcome
negative correlation between root mineral content and yielde0
Qualifier
formation of a mineral plaque on the surface of the wheat rootse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The negative correlation between root mineral content and yield was attributed to processes involved in the formation of a mineral plaque on the surface of the wheat roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1446–1617 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend exploring root function when selecting waterlogging-tolerant lines.

Outcome
explore differences in root function when selecting wheat lines for enhanced waterlogging tolerancee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the need to explore differences in root function when selecting wheat lines for enhanced waterlogging tolerance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1635–1746 · show in text ↑

flooding · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

102 papers: 17 positive, 85 negative or no effect

84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
    Field waterlogging caused average yield losses of 44%.

    Losses in Wheat Due to Waterlogging · 2002 · compared with control

    Same directionCites this paper

  3. negative

98 papers more in this group

See all 102 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.