Paper · 2003

In vitro salinity tolerance screening of some legumes and forages cultivars

Atef Hamdy; Adriana Bruggeman; Hayat Touchan; et al.

8
claims
8
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The increasing water demand for dmestic and industrial water users in the water-scarce Mediterranean region is effecting the availbility of fresh water supplies for agriculture. Whereas much research has been done on the effect of irrigation with low-quality water on saline tolerant species, little is known about the salinity tolerance of legume and forage cultivars. The salinity tolerance of 200 lentil cultivars(Lens culinaris), 205 chickpea cultivars (Cicer arietinum) and five tall fescue cultivars (Fescua Arundinacea Schreb.) was tested in vitro, using four different salinity levels (0.5, 4, 7,10 dS/m). A second screening was done after pre-soaking the seeds for 24 hours in water (0.5 dS/m). The effect of X-ray (96 Kv, 200 mas,/sec, 5 sec interval) on the germination of lentil under these conditions was also tested. In addition, 21 promising lentil varieties were tested in sand-filled pots in the greenhouse. Average germination of the 200 lentil cultivars varied between 3% for the dry seeds at an EC of 10 dS/m to 59% for the pre-soaked seeds at an EC of 0.5 dS/m. For the 205 chickpea varieties germination varied between 40% for the dry seeds at an EC of 10 dS/m to 84% for the pre-soaked seeds at an EC of 0.5 dS/m.The experiment indicated that the chickpea cultivars were more saline tolerant than the lentil and tall fescue cultivars. The X-ray treatment had no clear effect on the germination and shoot growth of lentil. Results of the top 50 cultivars of each screening test indicated that even for the more resistant cultivars shoot growth becomes severly impaired at an EC of 4 dS/m and higher. In the greenhouse, 8 of the 21 pre-soaked lentil cultivars survived at an EC of 7 dS/m. The tall fescue cultivars did not survive the saline water treatment (4 dS/m and above). This study indicated that the chickpea cultivars were more saline tolerant than the lentil and tall fescue cultivars.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean germination of 200 lentil cultivars ranged from 3% for dry seeds at EC 10 dS/m to 59% for pre-soaked seeds at EC 0.5 dS/m.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise0
Material
200 lentil cultivarse0
Outcome
Average germinatione0
Value
3%e0
Qualifier
dry seeds at an EC of 10 dS/m to 59% for the pre-soaked seeds at an EC of 0.5 dS/me0

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Average germination of the 200 lentil cultivars varied between 3% for the dry seeds at an EC of 10 dS/m to 59% for the pre-soaked seeds at an EC of 0.5 dS/m.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 925–1082 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean germination of 205 chickpea varieties ranged from 40% for dry seeds at EC 10 dS/m to 84% for pre-soaked seeds at EC 0.5 dS/m.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
205 chickpea varietiese0
Outcome
germinatione0
Value
40%e0
Qualifier
dry seeds at an EC of 10 dS/m to 84% for the pre-soaked seeds at an EC of 0.5 dS/me0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For the 205 chickpea varieties germination varied between 40% for the dry seeds at an EC of 10 dS/m to 84% for the pre-soaked seeds at an EC of 0.5 dS/m.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1236 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea cultivars were more saline tolerant than lentil cultivars.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
chickpea cultivarse0
Outcome
saline tolerante0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
lentile0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The experiment indicated that the chickpea cultivars were more saline tolerant than the lentil and tall fescue cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1236–1357 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea cultivars were more saline tolerant than tall fescue cultivars.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
chickpea cultivarse0
Outcome
saline tolerante0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
tall fescue cultivarse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The experiment indicated that the chickpea cultivars were more saline tolerant than the lentil and tall fescue cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1236–1357 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

X-ray treatment had no clear effect on lentil germination and shoot growth.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise0
Treatment
X-ray treatmente0
Outcome
germination and shoot growthe0
Direction
no clear effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The X-ray treatment had no clear effect on the germination and shoot growth of lentil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1358–1444 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Even the more resistant cultivars had severely impaired shoot growth at EC 4 dS/m and higher.

Taxon
more resistant cultivarse0
Outcome
shoot growthe0
Direction
severly impairede0
Qualifier
at an EC of 4 dS/m and highere0

Verbatim

e0

“even for the more resistant cultivars shoot growth becomes severly impaired at an EC of 4 dS/m and higher”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1515–1620 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Eight of 21 pre-soaked lentil cultivars survived at EC 7 dS/m in the greenhouse.

Taxon
lentilLens culinarise0
Material
lentil cultivarse0
Organ / stage
pre-soakede0
Outcome
survivede0
Value
8 of the 21e0
Qualifier
at an EC of 7 dS/me0
Setting
greenhousee0

Not reportedDirection

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

Lens culinaris
Lens culinaris · TaxonUser:Justinc · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the greenhouse, 8 of the 21 pre-soaked lentil cultivars survived at an EC of 7 dS/m.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1622–1709 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tall fescue cultivars did not survive saline water treatment at 4 dS/m and above.

Taxon
tall fescueLolium arundinaceume0
Material
tall fescue cultivarse0
Treatment
saline water treatment (4 dS/m and above)e0
Outcome
did not survivee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Lolium arundinaceum
Lolium arundinaceum · TaxonKrzysztof Ziarnek, Kenraiz · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The tall fescue cultivars did not survive the saline water treatment (4 dS/m and above).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1710–1798 · show in text ↑

radiation · growth · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

irrigation · survival · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 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.