Abstract
Water availability for agricultural use is currently a global problem that worsens with climate change in several regions of the world. Among grain legumes, common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is the most cultivated in the worldwide. The Chilean germplasm of common bean is characterized by tolerance to water stress. Here, we analyzed a selection of nine ancient Chilean landraces in regard to their drought tolerance, simulating optimal (OW) and restricted watering (RW) in a Mediterranean environment. Phenological, growth, and yield traits were recorded, and correlation analysis was performed. Accordingly, leaf temperature and osmotic potential were higher under RW, while the leaf chlorophyll content decreased in all landraces. Physiological maturity days and seed-filling days were lower in RW than in OW. This similarly occurred with the grain yield. The % yield reduction was negatively correlated with the % pod reduction and the relative rate of leaf expansion (RLAE) reduction. However, the 100-seed weight value was not significantly modified by water treatment (p > 0.05). For instance, landraces that preferred to fill the grain with a lower rate of leaf expansion showed a lower loss in grain yield under drought conditions. These results suggest that the resource partitioning between growing leaves, flowers, and developing pods in Chilean landraces is variable, affecting the common bean drought tolerance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Restricted watering raised leaf temperature.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
Phaseolus vulgarist0 - Treatment
- RWe0
- Outcome
- leaf temperaturee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- OWt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf temperature and osmotic potential were higher under RW”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
t1“optimal (OW) and restricted watering (RW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Restricted watering raised osmotic potential.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- RWe0
- Outcome
- osmotic potentiale0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- OWt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf temperature and osmotic potential were higher under RW”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
t1“optimal (OW) and restricted watering (RW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Restricted watering lowered leaf chlorophyll content in all landraces.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- restricted watering (RW)t1
- Outcome
- leaf chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- optimal (OW)t1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaf chlorophyll content decreased in all landraces.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
t1“optimal (OW) and restricted watering (RW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Restricted watering shortened days to physiological maturity.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- RWe0
- Outcome
- Physiological maturity dayse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- OWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Physiological maturity days and seed-filling days were lower in RW than in OW.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Restricted watering shortened seed-filling days.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- RWe0
- Outcome
- seed-filling dayse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- OWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Physiological maturity days and seed-filling days were lower in RW than in OW.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield was lower under restricted watering.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- RWt1
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- OWt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This similarly occurred with the grain yield.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
t1“optimal (OW) and restricted watering (RW)”
e1“Physiological maturity days and seed-filling days were lower in RW than in OW.”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reduction was negatively correlated with pod reduction.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Outcome
- % yield reductione0
- Direction
- negatively correlatede0
- Comparator
- % pod reductione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The % yield reduction was negatively correlated with the % pod reduction and the relative rate of leaf expansion (RLAE) reduction.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reduction was negatively correlated with relative leaf expansion reduction.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Outcome
- % yield reductione0
- Direction
- negatively correlatede0
- Comparator
- relative rate of leaf expansion (RLAE) reductione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The % yield reduction was negatively correlated with the % pod reduction and the relative rate of leaf expansion (RLAE) reduction.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water treatment did not significantly modify 100-seed weight.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- water treatmente0
- Outcome
- 100-seed weighte0
- Direction
- not significantly modifiede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 100-seed weight value was not significantly modified by water treatment (p > 0.05).”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Landraces filling grain with slower leaf expansion lost less yield under drought.
- Taxon
- common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Organ / stage
- leafe0
- Outcome
- loss in grain yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- under drought conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“landraces that preferred to fill the grain with a lower rate of leaf expansion showed a lower loss in grain yield under drought conditions.”
t0“Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)”
Claim · model-written summary
Variable resource partitioning among organs was suggested to affect drought tolerance.
- Taxon
- common beanPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- common bean drought tolerancee0
- Qualifier
- resource partitioning between growing leaves, flowers, and developing podse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the resource partitioning between growing leaves, flowers, and developing pods in Chilean landraces is variable, affecting the common bean drought tolerance.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
irrigation · physiology: pigments · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 87 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
118 papers more in this group
See all 122 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.