Abstract
Abstract In the course of climate change, crop plants are exposed to both altered precipitation volumes and frequencies in many cultivation areas. Reduced water availability and longer periods without precipitation can lead to changes in plant physiology and productivity. In this greenhouse study, we investigated physiological responses, including maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (F v /F m ) and water use efficiency (WUE) as well as diverse productivity‐related parameters, including grain yield per plant, to continuous (irrigated three times a week) versus pulsed (once a week) irrigation in spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). In both drought regimes, plants were exposed to four different irrigation volumes. F v /F m was not influenced by irrigation treatment but was significantly higher after 6 weeks of drought than after 2 weeks. WUE increased with decreasing irrigation volume and based on generative biomass; it was higher in continuously‐watered compared to pulsed‐watered plants that received a similar amount of water over the experiment. Infrequent irrigation led to a reduction in grain yield of up to 51%. This lower productivity was primarily caused by fewer tillers in pulsed‐watered plants. Additionally, at low water volume the thousand grain weight (TGW) was lower in infrequently‐compared to frequently‐watered plants. In contrast, the number of grains per ear was higher in pulsed‐watered plants. In conclusion, reduced irrigation frequency, next to a decrease in irrigation volume, negatively affects WUE and grain yield of spring wheat. These results might have important implications for irrigation scheduling and breeding programmes under a changing climate.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatment did not influence wheat F v /F m.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- F v /F me0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F v /F m was not influenced by irrigation treatment”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat F v /F m was significantly higher after six than two weeks of drought.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- F v /F me0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- after 6 weeks of droughte0
- Comparator
- after 2 weekse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F v /F m was not influenced by irrigation treatment but was significantly higher after 6 weeks of drought than after 2 weeks”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat water use efficiency increased as irrigation volume decreased.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation volumee0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WUE increased with decreasing irrigation volume”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Generative biomass based water use efficiency was higher under continuous than pulsed irrigation at equal total water.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- continuously‐waterede0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- similar amount of watere0
- Comparator
- pulsed‐watered plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WUE increased with decreasing irrigation volume and based on generative biomass; it was higher in continuously‐watered compared to pulsed‐watered plants that received a similar amount of water over the experiment.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Infrequent irrigation reduced wheat grain yield by up to 51%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Infrequent irrigatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- up to 51%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Infrequent irrigation led to a reduction in grain yield of up to 51%.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Pulsed watering produced fewer wheat tillers, primarily accounting for lower productivity.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- pulsed‐waterede0
- Outcome
- lower productivitye0
- Qualifier
- fewer tillerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This lower productivity was primarily caused by fewer tillers in pulsed‐watered plants.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
At low water volume, infrequent watering lowered thousand grain weight relative to frequent watering.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- infrequently‐e0
- Outcome
- thousand grain weight (TGW)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- at low water volumee0
- Comparator
- frequently‐watered plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at low water volume the thousand grain weight (TGW) was lower in infrequently‐compared to frequently‐watered plants.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Pulsed watering increased the number of grains per ear.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- pulsed‐waterede0
- Outcome
- number of grains per eare0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the number of grains per ear was higher in pulsed‐watered plants.”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
190 papers in the same direction as this paper · 798 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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.