Paper · 2010 · Journal of agricultural and biological science

Chlorophyll fluorescence, protein and chlorophyll content of three nerica rainfed rice varieties under varying irrigation regimes

P. A. Sikuku; G. W. Netondo; JC Onyango; et al.

4
claims
7
verbatim quotes
54
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Water deficit affects growth and development of rainfed rice leading to a considerable yield reduction or crop failure. Although the rice crop is susceptible to water deficit, there is a marked genotypic variation in protein and chlorophyll content in response to water deficit. The objective of this research was to investigate the effects of water deficit on chlorophyll fluorescence, protein and chlorophyll content of three recently developed rainfed rice varieties that is, New Rice for Africa (NERICA coded as N2, N4 and N11) with a view of determining their tolerance levels to water d deficit. This study was carried out in the University Botanic Garden, Maseno during 2005- 2006. Plants were subjected to water deficit treatments in the green house and in the field in a factorial set up. The seeds of the three NERICA cultivars of rice were planted in 20 Litre PVC pots in the greenhouse and in the experimental plots in the field, arranged in a completely randomized block design (CRBD) with four treatments and four replications. The treatments included watering a litre of water once a day (control), Watering every 2, 4 and 6 days. The parameters measured included chlorophyll fluorescence, protein and chlorophyll content. The Water deficit had no significant effect on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. The total chlorophyll and protein content declined with increasing water deficit. Results indicate that under moisture deficit conditions, there is no significant damage to the photosynthetic apparatus of the three rice varieties. NERICA 2 exhibited superior qualities indicating that it may perform well under 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit had no significant effect on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters.

Treatment
Water deficite0
Outcome
chlorophyll fluorescence parameterse0
Direction
no significant effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–86 · show in text ↑
e0

“The Water deficit had no significant effect on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1238–1321 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total chlorophyll and protein content declined with increasing water deficit.

Treatment
increasing water deficite0
Outcome
total chlorophyll and protein contente0
Direction
declinede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–86 · show in text ↑
e0

“The total chlorophyll and protein content declined with increasing water deficit.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1322–1403 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Moisture deficit did not significantly damage the photosynthetic apparatus of the three varieties.

Outcome
no significant damage to the photosynthetic apparatuse0
Qualifier
moisture deficit conditionse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“under moisture deficit conditions, there is no significant damage to the photosynthetic apparatus of the three rice varieties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1426–1552 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NERICA 2 showed superior qualities and was judged likely to perform well under water deficit.

Material
NERICA 2e0
Outcome
superior qualitiese0
Qualifier
may perform well under water deficit conditionse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–86 · show in text ↑
e0

“NERICA 2 exhibited superior qualities indicating that it may perform well under water deficit conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1553–1658 · show in text ↑

drought · physiology: pigments · Oryza sativa (rice)Results differ

42 papers: 6 positive, 36 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 papers →

drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

96 papers: 18 positive, 78 negative or no effect

77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

92 papers more in this group

See all 96 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.