Abstract
Waterlogging is a major constraint of mungbean production in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world and can cause a significant yield loss. The study evaluated 100 mungbean genotypes for tolerance to waterlogging employing rigorous field screening procedures. Three-week-old seedlings of 100 mungbean genotypes were subjected to waterlogging for 3 days maintaining a waterlogging depth of 2.5 cm. Waterlogging tolerance was evaluated during the periods of recovery and final harvest considering relative performance (values of waterlogging relative to non-waterlogging controls) of 18 plant traits. All the genotypes showed a wide range of variation in relative values. Some genotypes subjected to waterlogging produced plenty of adventitious roots that contributed to foliage development and chlorophyll increment, which resulted in better shoot growth, and eventually yield of mungbean increased. Nine plant traits highly associated in waterlogged conditions were used in cluster analysis. The genotypes within cluster 6 and cluster 7 performed better regarding almost all plant traits whereas cluster 4 performed very poorly. Discriminant function analysis showed that function 1 and function 2 explained 54.5% and 32.2%, respectively and altogether 86.7% variation in the genotypes. The harvest index and straw dry matter mostly explained the total variance in function 1. Dry matter of root, shoot and straw explained the maximum variance in function 2. Root dry matter played the most dominant role in explaining the maximum variance in the genotypes. The genotypes IPSA-10 and VC 6379 (23-11) showed a better degree of tolerance to waterlogging concerning yield and associated morpho-physiological traits.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging increased mungbean yield in some genotypes compared with non-waterlogging controls.
- Taxon
- mungbean
.jpg?width=60)
Vigna radiatat0 - Treatment
- subjected to waterlogginge1
- Outcome
- yield of mungbeane1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- non-waterlogging controlse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“Some genotypes subjected to waterlogging produced plenty of adventitious roots that contributed to foliage development and chlorophyll increment, which resulted in better shoot growth, and eventually yield of mungbean increased”
e2“values of waterlogging relative to non-waterlogging controls”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Adventitious roots contributed to foliage development and chlorophyll increment under waterlogging.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Organ / stage
- adventitious rootse1
- Outcome
- foliage development and chlorophyll incremente1
- Qualifier
- produced plenty of adventitious roots that contributed to foliage developmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Some genotypes subjected to waterlogging produced plenty of adventitious roots that contributed to foliage development and chlorophyll increment, which resulted in better shoot growth, and eventually yield of mungbean increased”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging gave better shoot growth in some genotypes compared with non-waterlogging controls.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- subjected to waterlogginge1
- Outcome
- shoot growthe1
- Direction
- bettere1
- Comparator
- non-waterlogging controlse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Some genotypes subjected to waterlogging produced plenty of adventitious roots that contributed to foliage development and chlorophyll increment, which resulted in better shoot growth, and eventually yield of mungbean increased”
e2“values of waterlogging relative to non-waterlogging controls”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
All genotypes showed a wide range of variation in relative values.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- All the genotypese3
- Outcome
- wide range of variation in relative valuese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“All the genotypes showed a wide range of variation in relative values”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes within cluster 6 and cluster 7 performed better than cluster 4 for almost all plant traits.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- genotypes within cluster 6 and cluster 7e4
- Outcome
- almost all plant traitse4
- Direction
- performed bettere4
- Comparator
- cluster 4e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The genotypes within cluster 6 and cluster 7 performed better regarding almost all plant traits whereas cluster 4 performed very poorly”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster 4 performed very poorly for almost all plant traits.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- cluster 4e4
- Outcome
- almost all plant traitse4
- Direction
- performed very poorlye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The genotypes within cluster 6 and cluster 7 performed better regarding almost all plant traits whereas cluster 4 performed very poorly”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Function 1 of the discriminant analysis explained 54.5% of the variation in the genotypes.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- genotypese5
- Outcome
- variation in the genotypese5
- Value
- 54.5%e5
- Qualifier
- function 1e5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Discriminant function analysis showed that function 1 and function 2 explained 54.5% and 32.2%, respectively and altogether 86.7% variation in the genotypes”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Function 2 of the discriminant analysis explained 32.2% of the variation in the genotypes.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- genotypese5
- Outcome
- variation in the genotypese5
- Value
- 32.2%e5
- Qualifier
- function 2e5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Discriminant function analysis showed that function 1 and function 2 explained 54.5% and 32.2%, respectively and altogether 86.7% variation in the genotypes”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Functions 1 and 2 together explained 86.7% of the variation in the genotypes.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- genotypese5
- Outcome
- variation in the genotypese5
- Value
- 86.7%e5
- Qualifier
- altogethere5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Discriminant function analysis showed that function 1 and function 2 explained 54.5% and 32.2%, respectively and altogether 86.7% variation in the genotypes”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest index and straw dry matter mostly explained the total variance in function 1.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- harvest index and straw dry mattere6
- Outcome
- total variance in function 1e6
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“The harvest index and straw dry matter mostly explained the total variance in function 1”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter of root, shoot and straw explained the maximum variance in function 2.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- Dry matter of root, shoot and strawe7
- Outcome
- maximum variance in function 2e7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Dry matter of root, shoot and straw explained the maximum variance in function 2”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Root dry matter played the most dominant role in explaining the maximum variance in the genotypes.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- Root dry mattere7
- Outcome
- maximum variance in the genotypese7
- Qualifier
- the most dominant rolee7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Root dry matter played the most dominant role in explaining the maximum variance in the genotypes”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes IPSA-10 and VC 6379 (23-11) showed a better degree of waterlogging tolerance concerning yield and associated morpho-physiological traits.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Material
- IPSA-10 and VC 6379 (23-11)e7
- Outcome
- degree of tolerance to waterlogginge7
- Direction
- bettere7
- Qualifier
- concerning yield and associated morpho-physiological traitse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The genotypes IPSA-10 and VC 6379 (23-11) showed a better degree of tolerance to waterlogging concerning yield and associated morpho-physiological traits”
t0“waterlogging tolerance in mungbean genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →flooding · growth · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.