Paper · 2025 · Current Research in Agricultural Sciences

Effect of waterlogging on growth and development of selected green gram varieties

Samson Onyango Ochar; Phoebe Anyango Sikuku; John Collins Onyango

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This experiment studied the effect of waterlogging on growth and development of selected green gram varieties so as to recommend to farmers the variety that can withstand waterlogging. The seeds of the three selected green gram varieties were planted in 10 litre capacity pots that were arranged in completely randomised design. Waterlogging was induced at vegetative stage; 21 days after sowing (DAS) by dipping 10 litre pots in larger 20 litre pots and maintaining standing water at 3cm above the soil level for 3days (T3), 6 days (T6) and 9 days (T9). Control (T0) was achieved by watering the pots with 500ml of water per day. Net assimilation rate, transpiration rate and stomatal conductance were measured using LI-COR 680 portable photosynthesis systems. Chlorophyll content was determined using the Arnon method. The measurements were taken from three plant samples per variety regularly throughout the study period. KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 maintained a significantly high net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content than KAT 00308 under waterlogging treatments. KAT 00308 was more vulnerable to waterlogging. The variety wilted and died under prolonged waterlogging but KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 survived though with reduced yield. Both small and commercial green gram farmers should plant KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 to minimise losses due to 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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Under waterlogging treatments, green gram variety KAT 00301 maintained significantly higher net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content than KAT 00308.

Material
KAT 00301e0
Treatment
waterlogging treatmentse0
Outcome
net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll contente0
Direction
highe0
Comparator
KAT 00308e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–71 · show in text ↑
e0

“KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 maintained a significantly high net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content than KAT 00308 under waterlogging treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 925–1093 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Under waterlogging treatments, green gram variety KAT 00309 maintained significantly higher net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content than KAT 00308.

Material
KAT 00309e0
Treatment
waterlogging treatmentse0
Outcome
net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll contente0
Direction
highe0
Comparator
KAT 00308e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–71 · show in text ↑
e0

“KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 maintained a significantly high net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content than KAT 00308 under waterlogging treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 925–1093 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green gram variety KAT 00308 was more vulnerable to waterlogging.

Material
KAT 00308e0
Outcome
more vulnerable to waterlogginge0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–71 · show in text ↑
e0

“KAT 00308 was more vulnerable to waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1140 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green gram variety KAT 00308 wilted and died under prolonged waterlogging.

Material
KAT 00308e0
Outcome
wilted and diede1
Qualifier
prolonged waterlogginge1

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–71 · show in text ↑
e0

“KAT 00308 was more vulnerable to waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1140 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety wilted and died under prolonged waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1198 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green gram variety KAT 00301 survived prolonged waterlogging, though with reduced yield.

Material
KAT 00301e0
Outcome
survivede0
Qualifier
reduced yielde0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–71 · show in text ↑
e0

“KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 survived though with reduced yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1261 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green gram variety KAT 00309 survived prolonged waterlogging, though with reduced yield.

Material
KAT 00309e0
Outcome
survivede0
Qualifier
reduced yielde0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–71 · show in text ↑
e0

“KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 survived though with reduced yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1261 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Small and commercial green gram farmers should plant KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 to minimise losses due to waterlogging.

Material
KAT 00301 and KAT 00309e0
Outcome
plant KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 to minimise losses due to waterlogginge0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both small and commercial green gram farmers should plant KAT 00301 and KAT 00309 to minimise losses due to waterlogging”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1263–1383 · show in text ↑

flooding · physiology: gas exchange · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 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.