Abstract
Abstract In cultivating guar [ Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub], a drought‐tolerant legume, producers anticipate soil N credits through biological N fixation (BNF), but it has been speculated that root nodulation is poor under dry conditions and little is known about how nodules recover from drought stress. To provide better insight, two greenhouse studies were conducted to investigate static (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% ET replacement in two soils) and dynamic (50%, 75% and 100%, plus 50% and 75% relieved to 100% at 20 and 30 days after planting) water regimes on guar over 50 days. Water stress generally had the greatest negative impact on nodule weight, followed by aboveground biomass, reproductive nodes, height and then nodule number. Parameter responses were either linear or quadratic with ET replacement and response slopes differed between soils for nodule weight and biomass. The relatively minor effect on nodule number indicated the basic machinery for BNF (nodules) remained largely intact until water stress was extreme. This was likely a key factor that enabled strong and rapid recovery of nodule growth following relief of water stress. Biomass recovery was likewise robust, with production equal to the stress‐free control, regardless of the intensity and duration of the stress. These results show that nodule growth in guar is highly sensitive to water stress, but the plant is resilient in maintaining nodules under water stress and recovering nodule growth upon moisture restoration.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress most negatively affected nodule weight.
- Taxon
- guar
Cyamopsis tetragonolobat0 - Treatment
- Water stresse0
- Outcome
- nodule weighte0
- Direction
- negative impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress generally had the greatest negative impact on nodule weight”
t0“guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress also negatively affected aboveground biomass, reproductive nodes, and height.
- Taxon
- guarCyamopsis tetragonolobat0
- Treatment
- Water stresse1
- Outcome
- aboveground biomass, reproductive nodes, heighte0
- Direction
- negative impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“greatest negative impact on nodule weight, followed by aboveground biomass, reproductive nodes, height and then nodule number”
e1“Water stress generally had the greatest negative impact on nodule weight”
t0“guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Nodule number was least affected by water stress.
- Taxon
- guarCyamopsis tetragonolobat0
- Treatment
- Water stresse1
- Outcome
- nodule numbere0
- Direction
- relatively minor effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The relatively minor effect on nodule number”
e1“Water stress generally had the greatest negative impact on nodule weight, followed by aboveground biomass, reproductive nodes, height and then nodule number”
t0“guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Nodule weight and biomass response slopes differed between soils.
- Taxon
- guarCyamopsis tetragonolobat0
- Outcome
- nodule weight and biomasse0
- Direction
- differede0
- Setting
- soilse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“response slopes differed between soils for nodule weight and biomass”
t0“guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Nodule growth recovered strongly and rapidly after relief of water stress.
- Taxon
- guarCyamopsis tetragonolobat0
- Treatment
- relief of water stresse0
- Outcome
- nodule growthe0
- Direction
- recoverye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“strong and rapid recovery of nodule growth following relief of water stress”
t0“guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass production after recovery equaled the stress-free control.
- Taxon
- guarCyamopsis tetragonolobat0
- Treatment
- Biomass recoverye0
- Outcome
- productione0
- Direction
- equal toe0
- Qualifier
- regardless of the intensity and duration of the stresse0
- Comparator
- stress‐free controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Biomass recovery was likewise robust, with production equal to the stress‐free control, regardless of the intensity and duration of the stress”
t0“guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]”
The same questions in other papers
drought · growth · Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (cluster bean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.