Abstract
Abstract Aluminum toxicity in acidic soils reduces wheat productivity by inhibiting root growth, disrupting nutrient uptake, and causing physiological stress. This study aimed to investigate the effect of Al stress on wheat varieties under limed and unlimed acidic soils. Fourteen bread wheat varieties were screened for acid tolerance under lath‐house conditions using acidic soil. From the screening activity, Balcha (tolerant variety) and Dursa (sensitive variety) were chosen and evaluated with five rates of Al application (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 mg kg −1 soil) under limed and unlimed soil conditions. The experiment was conducted in lath‐house laid down in factorial arrangement using a completely randomized design with six replications. The results showed that increased Al levels significantly reduced root and shoot length and biomass in both wheat varieties, with maximum reductions at the highest Al rate. Under unlimed conditions, Dursa exhibited greater susceptibility to Al toxicity, with root length and biomass reductions of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively, compared to Balcha, which displayed stronger tolerance. Soil acidity tolerance indices confirmed Balcha's resilience, with relative root length outperforming Dursa by 337%. Al‐induced stress increased leaf blotch severity, with Dursa showing higher infection (46.1%) than Balcha (34.4%). However, lime application significantly reduced severity, particularly in Dursa by 89.5%. Grain yield decreased by 23% at the highest Al rate. Lime application effectively mitigated Al toxicity, improving growth, yield, and disease resistance. Combining lime application with acid‐tolerant varieties such as Balcha presents a viable strategy for managing soil acidity and improving wheat production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing Al significantly reduced wheat root and shoot length and biomass, with maximum reductions at the highest rate.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- increased Al levelse0
- Outcome
- root and shoot length and biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- highest Al ratee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased Al levels significantly reduced root and shoot length and biomass in both wheat varieties, with maximum reductions at the highest Al rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Under unlimed conditions, Dursa root length fell by 82.3% and showed greater Al susceptibility than Balcha.
- Material
- Dursae0
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 82.3%e0
- Comparator
- Balchae0
- Setting
- unlimed conditionse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Under unlimed conditions, Dursa exhibited greater susceptibility to Al toxicity, with root length and biomass reductions of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively, compared to Balcha”
Claim · model-written summary
Under unlimed conditions, Dursa biomass fell by 69.3% and showed greater Al susceptibility than Balcha.
- Material
- Dursae0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 69.3%e0
- Comparator
- Balchae0
- Setting
- unlimed conditionse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Under unlimed conditions, Dursa exhibited greater susceptibility to Al toxicity, with root length and biomass reductions of 82.3% and 69.3%, respectively, compared to Balcha”
Claim · model-written summary
Balcha relative root length exceeded Dursa by 337%.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“relative root length outperforming Dursa by 337%”
Claim · model-written summary
Al stress increased leaf blotch severity, with Dursa infection at 46.1%.
- Material
- Dursae0
- Treatment
- Al‐induced stresse0
- Outcome
- leaf blotch severitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 46.1%e0
- Comparator
- Balchae0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Al‐induced stress increased leaf blotch severity, with Dursa showing higher infection (46.1%) than Balcha (34.4%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under Al stress, Dursa had higher infection than Balcha, whose infection was 34.4%.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Dursa showing higher infection (46.1%) than Balcha (34.4%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Liming significantly reduced leaf blotch severity in Dursa by 89.5%.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“lime application significantly reduced severity, particularly in Dursa by 89.5%”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield decreased 23% at the highest Al rate.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield decreased by 23% at the highest Al rate”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend combining lime with acid-tolerant varieties such as Balcha to manage soil acidity and improve wheat production.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- Balchae0
- Outcome
- Combining lime application with acid‐tolerant varietiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combining lime application with acid‐tolerant varieties such as Balcha presents a viable strategy for managing soil acidity and improving wheat production.”
The same questions in other papers
aluminium atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 papers →aluminium atom · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →aluminium atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →lime · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.