Abstract
ABSTRACT Waterlogging is a critical abiotic stress increasing in importance due to more intense, erratic rainfall associated with climate change. Waterlogging leads to significant yield losses in sensitive crops, such as soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.). Identifying soybean genotypes and traits associated with better waterlogging tolerance is of high interest. We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages. We evaluated yield and its components, as well as shoot and root dry weights (DW) at the end of the waterlogging treatments and at maturity, along with morphological traits such as plant branch number, stem diameter and plant height. By integrating all these traits, a waterlogging tolerance index (WTI) was calculated for each genotype to rank their sensitivity. The WTI showed variations among genotypes from 0.61 to 0.77, indicating genotypic variation in response to waterlogging. Greater reductions in root DW compared to shoot DW were observed immediately after waterlogging. By maturity, shoot DW of waterlogged plants was more severely reduced than root DW in all genotypes. Despite similar DW losses at R1 and R4 at physiological maturity, seed number per plant and 100‐seed weight responses differed between the treatments. Genotypes that performed well under control conditions suffered significant yield reductions of 70%–85% after waterlogging, mainly due to fewer fertile nodes and seeds per pod, with some also experiencing a notable decrease in 100‐seed weight. In contrast, other genotypes had milder responses, with less severe reductions in seed and pod traits. Identifying breeding soybean genotypes tolerant to waterlogging during reproductive stages that maintain the number of fertile nodes and pods per node without changes in seeds per pod could significantly mitigate yield losses from waterlogging.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
The waterlogging tolerance index of soybean genotypes varied from 0.61 to 0.77, indicating genotypic variation in waterlogging response.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Outcome
- WTIe1
- Value
- 0.61 to 0.77e1
- Qualifier
- genotypic variation in response to waterlogginge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e1“The WTI showed variations among genotypes from 0.61 to 0.77, indicating genotypic variation in response to waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging immediately caused greater reductions in root dry weight than in shoot dry weight of soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge2
- Outcome
- reductions in root DWe2
- Direction
- Greatere2
- Comparator
- shoot DWe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e2“Greater reductions in root DW compared to shoot DW were observed immediately after waterlogging”
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity, shoot dry weight of waterlogged soybean plants was more severely reduced than root dry weight in all genotypes.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- waterlogged plantse3
- Outcome
- shoot DWe3
- Direction
- more severely reducede3
- Comparator
- root DWe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e3“By maturity, shoot DW of waterlogged plants was more severely reduced than root DW in all genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed number per plant and 100-seed weight responses of soybean differed between waterlogging at R1 and at R4, despite similar dry weight losses.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stagese0
- Outcome
- seed number per plant and 100‐seed weight responsese4
- Direction
- differede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e4“Despite similar DW losses at R1 and R4 at physiological maturity, seed number per plant and 100‐seed weight responses differed between the treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean genotypes that performed well under control conditions suffered significant yield reductions of 70%–85% after waterlogging.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Material
- Genotypes that performed well under control conditionse5
- Treatment
- waterlogginge5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- reductionse5
- Value
- 70%–85%e5
- Comparator
- control conditionse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e5“Genotypes that performed well under control conditions suffered significant yield reductions of 70%–85% after waterlogging, mainly due to fewer fertile nodes and seeds per pod, with some also experiencing a notable decrease in 100‐seed weight”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield losses of well-performing soybean genotypes after waterlogging are mainly due to fewer fertile nodes and seeds per pod.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Qualifier
- mainly due to fewer fertile nodes and seeds per pode5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e5“Genotypes that performed well under control conditions suffered significant yield reductions of 70%–85% after waterlogging, mainly due to fewer fertile nodes and seeds per pod, with some also experiencing a notable decrease in 100‐seed weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Some soybean genotypes also showed a notable decrease in 100-seed weight after waterlogging.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- waterlogginge5
- Outcome
- 100‐seed weighte5
- Direction
- decreasee5
- Comparator
- control conditionse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e5“Genotypes that performed well under control conditions suffered significant yield reductions of 70%–85% after waterlogging, mainly due to fewer fertile nodes and seeds per pod, with some also experiencing a notable decrease in 100‐seed weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Identifying breeding soybean genotypes tolerant to waterlogging during reproductive stages could significantly mitigate yield losses from waterlogging.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- Identifying breeding soybean genotypes tolerant to waterlogginge6
- Qualifier
- could significantly mitigate yield losses from waterlogginge6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We assessed the response of six soybean genotypes, selected from a field screening of over 190 genotypes, to 10 days of waterlogging at the R1 (onset of flowering) and R4 (grain filling) stages”
e6“Identifying breeding soybean genotypes tolerant to waterlogging during reproductive stages that maintain the number of fertile nodes and pods per node without changes in seeds per pod could significantly mitigate yield losses from waterlogging”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →flooding · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 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.