Abstract
Abstract The effects of nitric oxide (NO) on the photosynthetic adaptation mechanisms of wheat plants in waterlogging during the flowering stage are poorly understood. Field and pot experiments using two cultivars were conducted with three treatments: waterlogging (WL), waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp), and adequate water (CK). The results indicated that the WLsnp and CK treatments exhibited significantly higher 1000‐kernel weight and yield than the WL treatment because of high photosynthetic potential( P <0.05). We found that the photosynthetic performance, including photosynthetic rate ( P n ), stomatal conductance ( g s ), mesophyll conductance ( g m ), carbon dioxide concentration at the carboxylation site ( C c ), maximum carboxylation rate ( V cmax ), maximum electron transfer rate ( J max ), actual electron transfer rate ( J ), actual PSII efficiency ( Φ PSII ) and potential maximum efficiency in PSII ( F v / F m ), was significantly improved in the WLsnp treatment compared to the WL treatment, both during waterlogging and after de‐waterlogging. Little difference was observed in the photosynthetic performance between the WLsnp and CK treatments during waterlogging for cultivar YM15 and after de‐waterlogging for cultivar YM24. Further analysis indicated that g s , g m and J were identified as key physiological indicators that synergistically regulate P n of waterlogged wheat plants. Overall, the improvement of wheat's waterlogging resistance capacity after spraying NO is mainly related to high g s , great g m , and high J .
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying NO donor (WLsnp) under waterlogging gave significantly higher 1000-kernel weight and yield than waterlogging alone (WL).
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp)e0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Qualifier
- 1000‐kernel weighte1
- Comparator
- WL treatmente1
- Setting
- Field and pot experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e0“Field and pot experiments using two cultivars were conducted with three treatments: waterlogging (WL), waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp), and adequate water (CK)”
e1“The results indicated that the WLsnp and CK treatments exhibited significantly higher 1000‐kernel weight and yield than the WL treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Adequate water (CK) gave significantly higher 1000-kernel weight and yield than waterlogging alone (WL).
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- adequate water (CK)e0
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Qualifier
- 1000‐kernel weighte1
- Comparator
- WL treatmente1
- Setting
- Field and pot experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e0“Field and pot experiments using two cultivars were conducted with three treatments: waterlogging (WL), waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp), and adequate water (CK)”
e1“The results indicated that the WLsnp and CK treatments exhibited significantly higher 1000‐kernel weight and yield than the WL treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying NO donor under waterlogging significantly improved photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance and mesophyll conductance compared with WL.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp)e0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic performancee2
- Direction
- significantly improvede2
- Qualifier
- photosynthetic rate ( P n ), stomatal conductance ( g s ), mesophyll conductance ( g m )e2
- Comparator
- WL treatmente2
- Setting
- Field and pot experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e0“Field and pot experiments using two cultivars were conducted with three treatments: waterlogging (WL), waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp), and adequate water (CK)”
e2“the photosynthetic performance, including photosynthetic rate ( P n ), stomatal conductance ( g s ), mesophyll conductance ( g m ), carbon dioxide concentration at the carboxylation site ( C c ), maximum carboxylation rate ( V cmax ), maximum electron transfer rate ( J max ), actual electron transfer rate ( J ), actual PSII efficiency ( Φ PSII ) and potential maximum efficiency in PSII ( F v / F m ), was significantly improved in the WLsnp treatment compared to the WL treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying NO donor under waterlogging significantly improved CO2 concentration at the carboxylation site, maximum carboxylation rate and maximum electron transfer rate compared with WL.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp)e0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic performancee2
- Direction
- significantly improvede2
- Qualifier
- carbon dioxide concentration at the carboxylation site ( C c ), maximum carboxylation rate ( V cmax ), maximum electron transfer rate ( J max )e2
- Comparator
- WL treatmente2
- Setting
- Field and pot experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e0“Field and pot experiments using two cultivars were conducted with three treatments: waterlogging (WL), waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp), and adequate water (CK)”
e2“the photosynthetic performance, including photosynthetic rate ( P n ), stomatal conductance ( g s ), mesophyll conductance ( g m ), carbon dioxide concentration at the carboxylation site ( C c ), maximum carboxylation rate ( V cmax ), maximum electron transfer rate ( J max ), actual electron transfer rate ( J ), actual PSII efficiency ( Φ PSII ) and potential maximum efficiency in PSII ( F v / F m ), was significantly improved in the WLsnp treatment compared to the WL treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying NO donor under waterlogging significantly improved actual electron transfer rate, actual PSII efficiency and potential maximum PSII efficiency compared with WL.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp)e0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic performancee2
- Direction
- significantly improvede2
- Qualifier
- actual electron transfer rate ( J ), actual PSII efficiency ( Φ PSII ) and potential maximum efficiency in PSII ( F v / F m )e2
- Comparator
- WL treatmente2
- Setting
- Field and pot experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e0“Field and pot experiments using two cultivars were conducted with three treatments: waterlogging (WL), waterlogging plus NO donor sodium nitroprusside (WLsnp), and adequate water (CK)”
e2“the photosynthetic performance, including photosynthetic rate ( P n ), stomatal conductance ( g s ), mesophyll conductance ( g m ), carbon dioxide concentration at the carboxylation site ( C c ), maximum carboxylation rate ( V cmax ), maximum electron transfer rate ( J max ), actual electron transfer rate ( J ), actual PSII efficiency ( Φ PSII ) and potential maximum efficiency in PSII ( F v / F m ), was significantly improved in the WLsnp treatment compared to the WL treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
For cultivar YM15 during waterlogging, and cultivar YM24 after de-waterlogging, the photosynthetic performance of WLsnp and CK plants differed little.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- YM15e3
- Treatment
- WLsnpe3
- Outcome
- photosynthetic performancee3
- Direction
- Little differencee3
- Qualifier
- during waterlogginge3
- Comparator
- CKe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e3“Little difference was observed in the photosynthetic performance between the WLsnp and CK treatments during waterlogging for cultivar YM15 and after de‐waterlogging for cultivar YM24”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify gs, gm and J as key physiological indicators that synergistically regulate the net photosynthetic rate of waterlogged wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- P ne4
- Qualifier
- key physiological indicatorse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“waterlogged wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e4“Further analysis indicated that g s , g m and J were identified as key physiological indicators that synergistically regulate P n of waterlogged wheat plants”
The same questions in other papers
sodium nitroprusside · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →nitric oxide donor · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
nitric oxide donor · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →sodium nitroprusside · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
19 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →flooding · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 84 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 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.