Abstract
The growth of crown and lateral roots emerged from the excised phytomers of pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoideum Rich.), barnyard millet (Echinochloa frumentacea Link.) and maize (Zea mays L.) was studied under normal and low osmotic potential conditions. The plants were grown in two solutions with osmotic potentials of –0.02 and –0.54 MPa for 6 days. The relative growth rate of the roots in total length (RGRL) , was not affected by osmotic stress in pearl and barnyard millets, but that in stressed maize was reduced to 64% of the control. Similarly, the relative growth rate of the roots in dry weight (RGRW), was not affected by osmotic stress in pearl and barnyard millets, but significantly reduced in maize. Osmotic stress increased the specific root length of the lateral roots in pearl and barnyard millets, but did not affect that of maize. The photosynthetic rate (Pr) in the two millets was decreased to ca. 60% of the control by the stress, and that in maize was reduced to 21%. Under the stress, Pr in the three species was limited mainly by low stomatal conductance, but no clear relationship was found between Pr and osmotic adjustment of the leaf. The relative water content of the leaf was lower in maize than in the two millets. The resistance to water flow through the phytomer (R) was significantly increased by osmotic stress in maize, but not significantly in the two millets. The mean root length (RL) was decreased by the stress in maize, but not in the two millets. The maintenance of RGRL in the two millets was associated with sustained R, RL and also with the maintenance of Pr and allocation of assimilates to roots.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress did not affect the root relative growth rate in total length of pearl and barnyard millets.
Verbatim
e1“The relative growth rate of the roots in total length (RGRL) , was not affected by osmotic stress in pearl and barnyard millets, but that in stressed maize was reduced to 64% of the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress reduced the root relative growth rate in total length of maize to 64% of the control.
- Treatment
- osmotic stresse1
- Outcome
- relative growth rate of the roots in total length (RGRL)e1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 64%e1
- Comparator
- controle1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The relative growth rate of the roots in total length (RGRL) , was not affected by osmotic stress in pearl and barnyard millets, but that in stressed maize was reduced to 64% of the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress did not affect the root relative growth rate in dry weight of pearl and barnyard millets.
- Taxon
- pearl and barnyard milletse2
- Treatment
- osmotic stresse2
- Outcome
- relative growth rate of the roots in dry weight (RGRW)e2
- Direction
- not affectede2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e2“the relative growth rate of the roots in dry weight (RGRW), was not affected by osmotic stress in pearl and barnyard millets, but significantly reduced in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress significantly reduced the root relative growth rate in dry weight of maize.
- Treatment
- osmotic stresse2
- Outcome
- relative growth rate of the roots in dry weight (RGRW)e2
- Direction
- significantly reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“the relative growth rate of the roots in dry weight (RGRW), was not affected by osmotic stress in pearl and barnyard millets, but significantly reduced in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress increased the specific root length of lateral roots in pearl and barnyard millets.
- Taxon
- pearl and barnyard milletse3
- Treatment
- Osmotic stresse3
- Outcome
- specific root length of the lateral rootse3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e3“Osmotic stress increased the specific root length of the lateral roots in pearl and barnyard millets, but did not affect that of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress did not affect the specific root length of lateral roots in maize.
- Treatment
- Osmotic stresse3
- Outcome
- specific root length of the lateral rootse3
- Direction
- did not affecte3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Osmotic stress increased the specific root length of the lateral roots in pearl and barnyard millets, but did not affect that of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The stress decreased the photosynthetic rate of the two millets to about 60% of the control.
Verbatim
e4“The photosynthetic rate (Pr) in the two millets was decreased to ca. 60% of the control by the stress, and that in maize was reduced to 21%”
Claim · model-written summary
The stress reduced the photosynthetic rate of maize to 21%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The photosynthetic rate (Pr) in the two millets was decreased to ca. 60% of the control by the stress, and that in maize was reduced to 21%”
Claim · model-written summary
Under the stress, photosynthetic rate in the three species was limited mainly by low stomatal conductance.
Verbatim
e5“Under the stress, Pr in the three species was limited mainly by low stomatal conductance”
Claim · model-written summary
No clear relationship was found between photosynthetic rate and osmotic adjustment of the leaf.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e5“Under the stress, Pr in the three species was limited mainly by low stomatal conductance”
e6“no clear relationship was found between Pr and osmotic adjustment of the leaf”
Claim · model-written summary
The relative water content of the leaf was lower in maize than in the two millets.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The relative water content of the leaf was lower in maize than in the two millets”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress significantly increased the resistance to water flow through the phytomer in maize.
- Treatment
- osmotic stresse1
- Outcome
- resistance to water flow through the phytomer (R)e1
- Direction
- significantly increasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The resistance to water flow through the phytomer (R) was significantly increased by osmotic stress in maize, but not significantly in the two millets”
Claim · model-written summary
Osmotic stress did not significantly increase the resistance to water flow through the phytomer in the two millets.
- Taxon
- two milletse1
- Treatment
- osmotic stresse1
- Outcome
- resistance to water flow through the phytomer (R)e1
- Direction
- not significantlye1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“The resistance to water flow through the phytomer (R) was significantly increased by osmotic stress in maize, but not significantly in the two millets”
Claim · model-written summary
The stress decreased mean root length in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The mean root length (RL) was decreased by the stress in maize, but not in the two millets”
Claim · model-written summary
The stress did not change mean root length in the two millets.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“The mean root length (RL) was decreased by the stress in maize, but not in the two millets”
Claim · model-written summary
Maintenance of root relative growth rate in the two millets was associated with sustained resistance, root length, photosynthetic rate and assimilate allocation to roots.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e1“The maintenance of RGRL in the two millets was associated with sustained R, RL and also with the maintenance of Pr and allocation of assimilates to roots”
The same questions in other papers
drought · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
307 papers in the same direction as this paper · 77 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
381 papers more in this group
See all 385 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.