Abstract
The effect of water deficits at 2 growth stages on the physiology and growth of lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus subsp. culinaris) genotypes bred/selected for 3 regions was examined in a glasshouse experiment. The water regimes imposed were: (i) a well-watered control, (ii) water withheld at flowering, from 72 to 93 days after sowing (DAS), and (iii) water withheld from podding (93 DAS) to maturity. The genotypes were a West Asian genotype released in Australia (Cassab), 2 South Asian Nepali cultivars (Khajura 2 and Simal), and 3 crossbreds between West Asian and South Asian parents (ILL 6829, ILL 7979, and ILL 7982). ILL 7979 and Simal had significantly greater total dry matter, water use, seed yield, number of pods and seeds per plant, and harvest index (HI) than the other genotypes under well-watered conditions. Water deficits reduced seed yield by up to 60% in the crossbreds and the South Asian cultivar, Simal. However, seed yield was increased by the water deficit at flowering and the water deficit at podding in the West Asian genotype, Cassab, and the South Asian genotype, Khajura 2, respectively. In the other genotypes, withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area (48–55%), total dry matter (32–50%), flower production (22–55%), and number of pods and seeds (27–66%), with significantly higher flower drop and empty pods when water was withheld. The higher seed yield in Cassab and Khajura 2 when water was withheld was related to the production of more flowers and the maintenance of pod and seed set when they were re-watered after the period of water deficit. When water was withheld during flowering, the West Asian genotype Cassab and the crossbred ILL 6829 used less water and hence maintained a high leaf water potential (?leaf), whereas ?leaf decreased earlier to lower values in the crossbred ILL 7979 and the South Asian genotypes Khajura 2 and Simal. There were no significant differences in leaf net photosynthesis (PN), or stomatal conductance (gS), among genotypes during flowering and early podding, but PN and gS were reduced by 22–38 and 19–67%, respectively, when water was withheld. The lower ?leaf in ILL 7979, Simal, and Khajura 2 induced greater osmotic adjustment (OA) during the drying cycle at flowering, whereas there was no or little OA when water was withheld at podding. Variation in physiological traits (PN, gS, OA) under both watering regimes was not directly related to seed yield, but seed number was related to seed yield under both well-watered and water-deficit conditions.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
ILL 7979 and Simal exceeded other genotypes in dry matter, water use, seed yield, pod and seed numbers, and harvest index when well watered.
- Taxon
- lentil
Lens culinarist0 - Material
- ILL 7979 and Simale0
- Outcome
- total dry matter, water use, seed yield, number of pods and seeds per plant, and harvest index (HI)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- the other genotypese0
- Setting
- well-watered conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ILL 7979 and Simal had significantly greater total dry matter, water use, seed yield, number of pods and seeds per plant, and harvest index (HI) than the other genotypes under well-watered conditions.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits reduced seed yield by up to 60% in crossbreds and Simal.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- Simale0
- Treatment
- Water deficitse0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 60%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficits reduced seed yield by up to 60% in the crossbreds and the South Asian cultivar, Simal.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
the water deficit at flowering increased seed yield in Cassab.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- Cassabe0
- Treatment
- the water deficit at floweringe0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed yield was increased by the water deficit at flowering and the water deficit at podding in the West Asian genotype, Cassab, and the South Asian genotype, Khajura 2, respectively.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
the water deficit at podding increased seed yield in Khajura 2.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- Khajura 2e0
- Treatment
- the water deficit at poddinge0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed yield was increased by the water deficit at flowering and the water deficit at podding in the West Asian genotype, Cassab, and the South Asian genotype, Khajura 2, respectively.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area by 48–55%.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- withholding water at flowering or poddinge0
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 48–55%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the other genotypes, withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area (48–55%), total dry matter (32–50%), flower production (22–55%), and number of pods and seeds (27–66%), with significantly higher flower drop and empty pods when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding water at flowering or podding reduced total dry matter by 32–50%.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- withholding water at flowering or poddinge0
- Outcome
- total dry mattere0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 32–50%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the other genotypes, withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area (48–55%), total dry matter (32–50%), flower production (22–55%), and number of pods and seeds (27–66%), with significantly higher flower drop and empty pods when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding water at flowering or podding reduced flower production by 22–55%.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- withholding water at flowering or poddinge0
- Outcome
- flower productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 22–55%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the other genotypes, withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area (48–55%), total dry matter (32–50%), flower production (22–55%), and number of pods and seeds (27–66%), with significantly higher flower drop and empty pods when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Withholding water at flowering or podding reduced number of pods and seeds by 27–66%.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- withholding water at flowering or poddinge0
- Outcome
- number of pods and seedse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 27–66%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the other genotypes, withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area (48–55%), total dry matter (32–50%), flower production (22–55%), and number of pods and seeds (27–66%), with significantly higher flower drop and empty pods when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water withholding increased flower drop and empty pods.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- water was withhelde0
- Outcome
- flower drop and empty podse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the other genotypes, withholding water at flowering or podding reduced leaf area (48–55%), total dry matter (32–50%), flower production (22–55%), and number of pods and seeds (27–66%), with significantly higher flower drop and empty pods when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher seed yield under water withholding in Cassab and Khajura 2 was related to more flowers and maintained pod and seed set after rewatering.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- Cassab and Khajura 2e0
- Treatment
- water was withhelde0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- production of more flowers and the maintenance of pod and seed sete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher seed yield in Cassab and Khajura 2 when water was withheld was related to the production of more flowers and the maintenance of pod and seed set when they were re-watered after the period of water deficit.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassab and ILL 6829 used less water during flowering water deficit.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- Cassab and the crossbred ILL 6829e0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- lesse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When water was withheld during flowering, the West Asian genotype Cassab and the crossbred ILL 6829 used less water and hence maintained a high leaf water potential (?leaf), whereas ?leaf decreased earlier to lower values in the crossbred ILL 7979 and the South Asian genotypes Khajura 2 and Simal.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassab and ILL 6829 maintained high leaf water potential during flowering water deficit.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- Cassab and the crossbred ILL 6829e0
- Outcome
- leaf water potential (?leaf)e0
- Direction
- highe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When water was withheld during flowering, the West Asian genotype Cassab and the crossbred ILL 6829 used less water and hence maintained a high leaf water potential (?leaf), whereas ?leaf decreased earlier to lower values in the crossbred ILL 7979 and the South Asian genotypes Khajura 2 and Simal.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential decreased earlier and lower in ILL 7979, Khajura 2 and Simal.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- ILL 7979e0
- Outcome
- ?leafe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- Khajura 2 and Simale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When water was withheld during flowering, the West Asian genotype Cassab and the crossbred ILL 6829 used less water and hence maintained a high leaf water potential (?leaf), whereas ?leaf decreased earlier to lower values in the crossbred ILL 7979 and the South Asian genotypes Khajura 2 and Simal.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf net photosynthesis and stomatal conductance did not significantly differ among genotypes during flowering and early podding.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- leaf net photosynthesis (PN), or stomatal conductance (gS)e0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in leaf net photosynthesis (PN), or stomatal conductance (gS), among genotypes during flowering and early podding, but PN and gS were reduced by 22–38 and 19–67%, respectively, when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water withholding reduced PN by 22–38.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in leaf net photosynthesis (PN), or stomatal conductance (gS), among genotypes during flowering and early podding, but PN and gS were reduced by 22–38 and 19–67%, respectively, when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water withholding reduced gS by 19–67%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in leaf net photosynthesis (PN), or stomatal conductance (gS), among genotypes during flowering and early podding, but PN and gS were reduced by 22–38 and 19–67%, respectively, when water was withheld.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower leaf water potential was linked to greater osmotic adjustment in ILL 7979, Simal and Khajura 2 during flowering drought.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- ILL 7979, Simal, and Khajura 2e0
- Outcome
- osmotic adjustment (OA)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- lower ?leafe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lower ?leaf in ILL 7979, Simal, and Khajura 2 induced greater osmotic adjustment (OA) during the drying cycle at flowering, whereas there was no or little OA when water was withheld at podding.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water withholding at podding produced no or little osmotic adjustment.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- water was withheld at poddinge0
- Outcome
- OAe0
- Direction
- no or littlee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lower ?leaf in ILL 7979, Simal, and Khajura 2 induced greater osmotic adjustment (OA) during the drying cycle at flowering, whereas there was no or little OA when water was withheld at podding.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Variation in PN, gS and OA was not directly related to seed yield.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- both watering regimese0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Qualifier
- not directly relatede0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Variation in physiological traits (PN, gS, OA) under both watering regimes was not directly related to seed yield, but seed number was related to seed yield under both well-watered and water-deficit conditions.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed number was related to seed yield under both watering conditions.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarist0
- Treatment
- both well-watered and water-deficit conditionse0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Qualifier
- seed number was related to seed yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Variation in physiological traits (PN, gS, OA) under both watering regimes was not directly related to seed yield, but seed number was related to seed yield under both well-watered and water-deficit conditions.”
t0“lentil genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
stage · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
stage · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →drought · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →drought · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.