Abstract
Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) is a preferred vegetable by local farmers at a riparian wetland in Indonesia due to high market demand and its economic value. Chili pepper can be grown immediately after rice harvesting, concurrently with the early dry season. Three chili pepper varieties, namely Genie, Romario, and Laris were evaluated for their adaptability to drought condition. Drought treatment was imposed for 7 days until soil water potential was dropped to around −30 to −40 kPa. Morphological and photosynthetic traits were measured at pre-, during, and post-drought exposures. Growth analysis was calculated based on measured morphological traits. Results indicated that the number of leaves (NoL), total leaf area (TLA), total accumulated dry matter (TDM), and relative growth rate (RGR) were negatively affected by drought. Water content of shoot (SWC), leaf (LWC), and root (RWC) were significantly decreased during drought exposure; yet, able to fully recover at 7 days after drought treatment was terminated. Decrease in shoot root ratio (SRR) and leaf weight ratio (LWR); reversely, increase the root weight ratio (RWR) under drought condition, was not associated with enhancement of root growth. Rather, it was due to less negatively effect of drought on roots than on the above-ground organs. Simultaneously, chlorophyll fluorescence, LWC, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthetic rates declined during drought exposure. However, 7 days after drought treatment was terminated, all traits were able to return to pre-drought levels. Among chili pepper varieties studied, Genie exhibited better overall performance than Laris and Romario did under drought stress condition.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drought negatively affected the number of leaves, total leaf area and total accumulated dry matter of chili pepper.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
Capsicum annuume0 - Treatment
- droughte1
- Outcome
- number of leaves (NoL), total leaf area (TLA), total accumulated dry matter (TDM)e1
- Direction
- negatively affectede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e1“the number of leaves (NoL), total leaf area (TLA), total accumulated dry matter (TDM), and relative growth rate (RGR) were negatively affected by drought”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought negatively affected the relative growth rate of chili pepper.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- droughte1
- Outcome
- relative growth rate (RGR)e1
- Direction
- negatively affectede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e1“the number of leaves (NoL), total leaf area (TLA), total accumulated dry matter (TDM), and relative growth rate (RGR) were negatively affected by drought”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot, leaf and root water contents significantly decreased during drought exposure.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- drought exposuree2
- Outcome
- Water content of shoot (SWC), leaf (LWC), and root (RWC)e2
- Direction
- significantly decreasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e2“Water content of shoot (SWC), leaf (LWC), and root (RWC) were significantly decreased during drought exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
All measured traits returned to pre-drought levels 7 days after drought treatment ended.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- drought treatmente3
- Outcome
- all traitse3
- Direction
- able to return toe3
- Comparator
- pre-drought levelse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e3“However, 7 days after drought treatment was terminated, all traits were able to return to pre-drought levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll fluorescence declined during drought exposure in chili pepper.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- drought exposuree4
- Outcome
- chlorophyll fluorescencee4
- Direction
- declinede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e4“Simultaneously, chlorophyll fluorescence, LWC, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthetic rates declined during drought exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthetic rates declined during drought exposure in chili pepper.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- drought exposuree4
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthetic ratese4
- Direction
- declinede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e4“Simultaneously, chlorophyll fluorescence, LWC, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthetic rates declined during drought exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
Genie performed better overall than Laris and Romario under drought stress.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Material
- Geniee5
- Treatment
- drought stress conditione5
- Outcome
- overall performancee5
- Direction
- bettere5
- Comparator
- Laris and Romarioe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e5“Among chili pepper varieties studied, Genie exhibited better overall performance than Laris and Romario did under drought stress condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot root ratio and leaf weight ratio decreased under drought in chili pepper.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- drought conditione6
- Outcome
- shoot root ratio (SRR) and leaf weight ratio (LWR)e6
- Direction
- Decreasee6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e6“Decrease in shoot root ratio (SRR) and leaf weight ratio (LWR); reversely, increase the root weight ratio (RWR) under drought condition”
Claim · model-written summary
Root weight ratio increased under drought in chili pepper.
- Taxon
- Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)Capsicum annuume0
- Treatment
- drought conditione6
- Outcome
- root weight ratio (RWR)e6
- Direction
- increasee6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)”
e6“Decrease in shoot root ratio (SRR) and leaf weight ratio (LWR); reversely, increase the root weight ratio (RWR) under drought condition”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: water · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →drought · growth · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 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.