Abstract
Abstract Flooding stress is a growing threat to global soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production as the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitations are increasing due to climate change. Soybean is highly sensitive to flooding and substantial yield losses are observed due to a cascade of negative physiological responses induced by hypoxia. Hence, there is a pressing need for the development of flood‐tolerant genotypes. This study evaluated the grain yield and seed protein and oil content of 31 soybean genotypes over 2 years under both non‐flooding and flooding conditions, where flooding entailed a 4‐day partial water submergence during the early reproductive growth stages R1/R2. Mixed‐effects linear models were utilized to assess the impact of flood damage scores (FDSs, 1–4 scale) on observed phenotypes, as well as differences in observed phenotypes between tolerant, moderate, and susceptible genotypes across flooding and non‐flooding treatments. No significant impact of FDS was observed for seed protein and oil content. In addition, no significant differences in these phenotypes were observed between flooding and non‐flooding treatments across the various genotype categories. On average, for each unit increase in FDS, grain yield decreased by 432.7 kg ha −1 (17.4%). Tolerant genotypes experienced roughly 33% yield losses between flooding and non‐flooding treatments, while moderate and susceptible genotypes experienced 44% and 51% yield losses, respectively. The advancements in genomics and phenomics are promising for the identification and incorporation of novel flood‐tolerant alleles through plant breeding, potentially mitigating flooding‐induced yield losses across diverse environmental conditions.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Flood damage score had no significant impact on soybean seed protein content.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- FDSe0
- Outcome
- seed proteine0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant impact of FDS was observed for seed protein and oil content.”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood damage score had no significant impact on soybean seed oil content.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- FDSe0
- Outcome
- oil contente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant impact of FDS was observed for seed protein and oil content.”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed protein content did not differ significantly between flooding and non-flooding treatments across genotype categories.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- floodinge0
- Outcome
- seed proteine1
- Qualifier
- various genotype categoriese0
- Comparator
- non‐floodinge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences in these phenotypes were observed between flooding and non‐flooding treatments across the various genotype categories.”
e1“grain yield and seed protein and oil content of 31 soybean genotypes”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed oil content did not differ significantly between flooding and non-flooding treatments across genotype categories.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- floodinge0
- Outcome
- oil contente1
- Qualifier
- various genotype categoriese0
- Comparator
- non‐floodinge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences in these phenotypes were observed between flooding and non‐flooding treatments across the various genotype categories.”
e1“grain yield and seed protein and oil content of 31 soybean genotypes”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Each unit increase in flood damage score was associated with a 432.7 kg ha −1 (17.4%) decrease in soybean grain yield.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- FDSe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 432.7 kg ha −1 (17.4%)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for each unit increase in FDS, grain yield decreased by 432.7 kg ha −1 (17.4%).”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Tolerant soybean genotypes lost roughly 33% yield under flooding versus non-flooding.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- Tolerant genotypese0
- Treatment
- floodinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 33%e0
- Comparator
- non‐floodinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tolerant genotypes experienced roughly 33% yield losses between flooding and non‐flooding treatments”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate soybean genotypes lost 44% yield under flooding versus non-flooding.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- moderatee0
- Treatment
- floodinge1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 44%e0
- Comparator
- non‐floodinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderate and susceptible genotypes experienced 44% and 51% yield losses, respectively.”
e1“yield losses between flooding and non‐flooding treatments”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Susceptible soybean genotypes lost 51% yield under flooding versus non-flooding.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- susceptible genotypese0
- Treatment
- floodinge1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 51%e0
- Comparator
- non‐floodinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderate and susceptible genotypes experienced 44% and 51% yield losses, respectively.”
e1“yield losses between flooding and non‐flooding treatments”
t0“soybean”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · quality: oil · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
flooding · quality: protein · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →flooding · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 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.