Paper · 2014 · Environment Control in Biology

Effects of Flooding Treatments on Photosynthetic Activity of Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars

Takuya ARAKI; Thay Thay OO; Fumitake KUBOTA

8
claims
18
verbatim quotes
7
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The response in growth and gas exchange to a flooding condition was characterized with 8 cultivars of greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Pot-grown plants were subjected to 6-d flooding and 6-d recovery treatment. The flooding treatment had serious effects on the gas exchange and electron transport of 7 cultivars except for cv. KP, while the damages were lenient in cv. KP. KP was characterized by maintaining relatively higher stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and photochemical efficiency of photosystem II, which was attributed to sustaining the CO2 assimilation under flooding stress. KP was also superior in photosynthetic sustainment than other 7 cultivars under recovery treatment, which was attributable to the fact that this cultivar recovered stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, electron transport and the ratio of photorespiration to total carbon assimilation. These results in cv. KP lead to higher plant growth in relation to leaf area extension and dry matter.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flooding had serious effects on gas exchange and electron transport of seven cultivars other than KP.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Material
7 cultivars except for cv. KPe0
Treatment
flooding treatmente0
Outcome
gas exchange and electron transporte0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e0

“The flooding treatment had serious effects on the gas exchange and electron transport of 7 cultivars except for cv. KP, while the damages were lenient in cv. KP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 218–378 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flooding damage was lenient in cv. KP.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Material
cv. KPe0
Treatment
flooding treatmente0
Outcome
damagese0
Direction
leniente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e0

“The flooding treatment had serious effects on the gas exchange and electron transport of 7 cultivars except for cv. KP, while the damages were lenient in cv. KP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 218–378 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

KP maintained relatively higher stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and photochemical efficiency of photosystem II under flooding.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Material
KPe1
Treatment
flooding stresse1
Outcome
stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and photochemical efficiency of photosystem IIe1
Direction
relatively highere1

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e1

“KP was characterized by maintaining relatively higher stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and photochemical efficiency of photosystem II, which was attributed to sustaining the CO2 assimilation under flooding stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–603 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

KP higher gas exchange under flooding was attributed to sustained CO2 assimilation.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Material
KPe1
Treatment
flooding stresse1
Outcome
sustaining the CO2 assimilatione1

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e1

“KP was characterized by maintaining relatively higher stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and photochemical efficiency of photosystem II, which was attributed to sustaining the CO2 assimilation under flooding stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–603 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

KP was superior in photosynthetic sustainment to the other seven cultivars under recovery treatment.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Material
KPe2
Treatment
recovery treatmente2
Outcome
photosynthetic sustainmente2
Direction
superiore2
Comparator
other 7 cultivarse2

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e2

“KP was also superior in photosynthetic sustainment than other 7 cultivars under recovery treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 605–703 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

KP recovered stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance and electron transport after flooding.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Treatment
6-d recovery treatmente4
Outcome
stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, electron transporte3
Direction
recoverede3

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e3

“this cultivar recovered stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, electron transport and the ratio of photorespiration to total carbon assimilation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 745–895 · show in text ↑
e4

“Pot-grown plants were subjected to 6-d flooding and 6-d recovery treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–216 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

KP recovered the ratio of photorespiration to total carbon assimilation after flooding.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Treatment
6-d recovery treatmente4
Outcome
the ratio of photorespiration to total carbon assimilatione3
Direction
recoverede3

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e3

“this cultivar recovered stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, electron transport and the ratio of photorespiration to total carbon assimilation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 745–895 · show in text ↑
e4

“Pot-grown plants were subjected to 6-d flooding and 6-d recovery treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–216 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar KP had higher plant growth in leaf area extension and dry matter.

Taxon
Vigna radiataVigna radiatat0
Material
cv. KPe5
Outcome
plant growth in relation to leaf area extension and dry mattere5
Direction
highere5

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

Vigna radiata
Vigna radiata · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Different Greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–119 · show in text ↑
e5

“These results in cv. KP lead to higher plant growth in relation to leaf area extension and dry matter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 897–998 · show in text ↑

flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 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.