Abstract
Abstract Increasing temperatures are adversely affecting various food crops, including legumes, and this issue requires attention. The growth of two cool‐season food legumes, chickpea and lentil, is inhibited by high temperatures but their relative sensitivity to heat stress and the underlying reasons have not been investigated. Moreover, the high‐temperature thresholds for these two legumes have not been well‐characterised. In the present study, three chickpea (ICCVO7110, ICC5912 and ICCV92944) and two lentil (LL699 and LL931) genotypes, having nearly similar phenology with respect to flowering, were grown at 30/20°C (day/night; control) until the onset of flowering and subsequently exposed to varying high temperatures (35/25, 38/28, 40/30 and 42/32°C; day/night) in a controlled environment (growth chamber; 12 hr/12 hr; light intensity 750 µmol m −2 s −1 ; RH‐70%) at 108 days after sowing for both the species. Phenology (podding, maturity) was accelerated in both the species; the days to podding declined more in lentil at 35/25 (2.8 days) and 38/28°C (11.3 days) than in chickpea (1.7 and 7.1 days, respectively). Heat stress decreased flowering–podding and podding–maturity intervals considerably in both the species. At higher temperatures, no podding was observed in lentil, while chickpea showed reduction of 14.9 and 16.1 days at 40/30 and 42/32°C, respectively. Maturity was accelerated on 15.3 and 12.5 days at 38/28°C, 33.6 and 34 days at 40/30°C and 45.6 and 47 days at 42/32°C, in chickpea and lentil, respectively. Consequently, biomass decreased considerably at 38/28°C in both the species to limit the yield‐related traits. Lentil was significantly more sensitive to heat stress, with the damage—assessed as reduction in biomass, reproductive function‐related traits (pollen viability, germination, pollen tube growth and stigma receptivity), leaf traits such as membrane injury, leaf water status, photochemical efficiency, chlorophyll concentration, carbon fixation and assimilation, and oxidative stress, appearing even at 35/25°C, compared with 38/28°C, in chickpea. The expression of enzymatic antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, ascorbate peroxidase, glutathione reductase and non‐enzymatic antioxidants declined remarkably with heat stress, more so in lentil than in chickpea. Carbon fixation (assessed as Rubisco activity) and assimilation (assessed as sucrose concentration, sucrose synthase activity) were also reduced more in lentil than in chickpea, at all the stressful temperatures, resulting in more inhibition of plant biomass (shoot + roots), damage to reproductive function and severe reduction in pods and seeds. At 38/28°C, lentil showed 43% reduction in biomass, while it declined by 17.2% in chickpea at the same time, over the control temperature (30/20°C). At this temperature, lentil showed 53% and 46% reduction in pods and seed yield, compared to 13.4% and 22% decrease in chickpea at the same temperature. At 40/30°C, lentil did not produce any pods, while chickpea was able to produce few pods at this temperature. This study identified that lentil is considerably more sensitive to heat stress than chickpea, as a result of more damage to leaves (photosynthetic ability; oxidative injury) and reproductive components (pollen function, etc.) at 35/25°C and above, at controlled 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Heat accelerated podding in lentil by 2.8 and 11.3 days at 35/25 and 38/28°C.
- Taxon
- lentil
Lens culinarise0 - Treatment
- 35/25 (2.8 days) and 38/28°C (11.3 days)e0
- Outcome
- days to poddinge0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 2.8 dayse0
- Comparator
- 30/20°Ce1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the days to podding declined more in lentil at 35/25 (2.8 days) and 38/28°C (11.3 days)”
e1“grown at 30/20°C (day/night; control)”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat accelerated podding in chickpea by 1.7 and 7.1 days at the corresponding temperatures.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- 35/25e1
- Outcome
- days to poddinge1
- Direction
- declinede1
- Value
- 1.7e0
- Comparator
- 30/20°Ce2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in chickpea (1.7 and 7.1 days, respectively)”
e1“the days to podding declined more in lentil at 35/25 (2.8 days) and 38/28°C (11.3 days) than in chickpea (1.7 and 7.1 days, respectively)”
e2“grown at 30/20°C (day/night; control)”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat shortened flowering to podding and podding to maturity intervals in both legumes.
- Taxon
- chickpea and lentilCicer arietinumLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- Heat stresse0
- Outcome
- flowering–podding and podding–maturity intervalse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Heat stress decreased flowering–podding and podding–maturity intervals considerably in both the species”
e1“two cool‐season food legumes, chickpea and lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
At higher temperatures, lentil did not pod.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- higher temperaturese0
- Outcome
- no poddinge0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At higher temperatures, no podding was observed in lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea podding time fell by 14.9 days at 40/30°C.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- 40/30e0
- Outcome
- days to poddinge1
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 14.9e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chickpea showed reduction of 14.9 and 16.1 days at 40/30 and 42/32°C, respectively”
e1“days to podding”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea podding time fell by 16.1 days at 42/32°C.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- 42/32°Ce0
- Outcome
- days to poddinge1
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 16.1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chickpea showed reduction of 14.9 and 16.1 days at 40/30 and 42/32°C, respectively”
e1“days to podding”
Claim · model-written summary
Maturity accelerated in chickpea by 15.3, 33.6 and 45.6 days as temperature rose.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maturity was accelerated on 15.3 and 12.5 days at 38/28°C, 33.6 and 34 days at 40/30°C and 45.6 and 47 days at 42/32°C, in chickpea and lentil, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Maturity accelerated in lentil by 12.5, 34 and 47 days as temperature rose.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- 38/28°Ce0
- Outcome
- Maturitye0
- Direction
- acceleratede0
- Value
- 12.5 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maturity was accelerated on 15.3 and 12.5 days at 38/28°C, 33.6 and 34 days at 40/30°C and 45.6 and 47 days at 42/32°C, in chickpea and lentil, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
At 38/28°C, lentil biomass fell 43% versus control.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- 38/28°Ce0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 43%e0
- Comparator
- control temperature (30/20°C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 38/28°C, lentil showed 43% reduction in biomass, while it declined by 17.2% in chickpea at the same time, over the control temperature (30/20°C)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 38/28°C, chickpea biomass fell 17.2% versus control.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- 38/28°Ce0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 17.2%e0
- Comparator
- control temperature (30/20°C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 38/28°C, lentil showed 43% reduction in biomass, while it declined by 17.2% in chickpea at the same time, over the control temperature (30/20°C)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil pods fell 53% at 38/28°C.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At this temperature, lentil showed 53% and 46% reduction in pods and seed yield, compared to 13.4% and 22% decrease in chickpea at the same temperature”
e1“At 38/28°C, lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil seed yield fell 46% at 38/28°C.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At this temperature, lentil showed 53% and 46% reduction in pods and seed yield, compared to 13.4% and 22% decrease in chickpea at the same temperature”
e1“At 38/28°C, lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea pods fell 13.4% at 38/28°C.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At this temperature, lentil showed 53% and 46% reduction in pods and seed yield, compared to 13.4% and 22% decrease in chickpea at the same temperature”
e1“At 38/28°C, lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea seed yield fell 22% at 38/28°C.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At this temperature, lentil showed 53% and 46% reduction in pods and seed yield, compared to 13.4% and 22% decrease in chickpea at the same temperature”
e1“At 38/28°C, lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil antioxidant activities declined more with heat stress than chickpea.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- heat stresse0
- Outcome
- expression of enzymatic antioxidantse0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Comparator
- chickpeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The expression of enzymatic antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, ascorbate peroxidase, glutathione reductase and non‐enzymatic antioxidants declined remarkably with heat stress, more so in lentil than in chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon fixation and assimilation were reduced more in lentil than chickpea at all stress temperatures.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- stressful temperaturese0
- Outcome
- Carbon fixatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- chickpeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon fixation (assessed as Rubisco activity) and assimilation (assessed as sucrose concentration, sucrose synthase activity) were also reduced more in lentil than in chickpea, at all the stressful temperatures”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil showed no pods at 40/30°C while chickpea produced a few.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- 40/30°Ce0
- Outcome
- did not produce any podse0
- Comparator
- chickpeae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 40/30°C, lentil did not produce any pods, while chickpea was able to produce few pods at this temperature”
Claim · model-written summary
Reproductive function and leaf physiological damage appeared at 35/25°C in lentil but 38/28°C in chickpea.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- reproductive function‐related traitse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- 35/25°Ce0
- Comparator
- chickpeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lentil was significantly more sensitive to heat stress, with the damage—assessed as reduction in biomass, reproductive function‐related traits (pollen viability, germination, pollen tube growth and stigma receptivity), leaf traits such as membrane injury, leaf water status, photochemical efficiency, chlorophyll concentration, carbon fixation and assimilation, and oxidative stress, appearing even at 35/25°C, compared with 38/28°C, in chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
heat · phenology · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
heat · phenology · Lens culinaris (lentil)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
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.