Paper · 2025 · Plant Science Today

Effect of exogenous proline on drought stress tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars

H H A Alkhafagi; Y A Al-Janabi; K F H Al-Khafagi

13
claims
26
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Due to the scarcity of irrigation water and to achieve maximum benefit from the available irrigation water, this study investigated the impact of exogenous proline application on drought tolerance in three wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars and evaluated their water use under stress conditions. A factorial field experiment was conducted using a split-split plot design with three factors at three levels each. The main plot factor was drought stress, with three levels: S1 (control) involved irrigation with 50 % of the available water between field capacity (FC) and wilting point(WP); S2 represented mild drought with 30 % available water (70 % reduction); S3 represented severe drought with 10 % available water (90 % reduction). The second factor (subplot) was proline concentration: P1 (0 mg L-1), P2 (25 mg L-1) and P3 (50 mg L-1). The third factor (sub-subplot) was wheat cultivar: Ibaa 99, Adnaniyah and Sham 6. A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water). The highest water use efficiency was recorded under 30 % available water, while the maximum grain yield (6.07 tons ha-1) was achieved under 50 % available water. Foliar application of 50 mg L-1 proline (P3) increased grain yield and improved water use efficiency to 1.61 kg grains m-3 water. Although interactions between drought stress and proline concentration were not statistically significant, Sham 6 consistently outperformed Ibaa 99 and Adnaniyah across most growth and yield parameters.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat plant height to 58.53 cm.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
58.53 cme0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat spikes per plant to 3.98.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
spikes per plante0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
3.98e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat seeds per spike to 37.86.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
seeds per spikee0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
37.86e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat total yield to 3.47 tons per hectare.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
total yielde0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
3.47 tons·ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat flag leaf area to 25.75 square centimeters.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
flag leaf areae0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
25.75 cm²e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat chlorophyll content.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
chlorophyllcontente0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
90 %e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe drought reduced wheat water use efficiency to 1.6 kg grains per cubic meter water.

Treatment
90 % reduction in available watere0
Outcome
water use efficiencye0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
1.6 kg grains m-3 watere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 90 % reduction in available water significantly decreased vegetative and yield parameters, including plant height (58.53 cm), spikes per plant (3.98), seeds per spike (37.86), total yield (3.47 tons·ha-1), flag leaf area (25.75 cm²), chlorophyllcontent and water use efficiency (1.6 kg grains m-3 water).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 926–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat water use efficiency was highest under 30 % available water.

Treatment
30 % available watere0
Outcome
water use efficiencye0
Direction
higheste0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest water use efficiency was recorded under 30 % available water, while the maximum grain yield (6.07 tons ha-1) was achieved under 50 % available water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1394 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat grain yield reached 6.07 tons per hectare under 50 % available water.

Treatment
50 % available watere0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
maximume0
Value
6.07 tons ha-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest water use efficiency was recorded under 30 % available water, while the maximum grain yield (6.07 tons ha-1) was achieved under 50 % available water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1394 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar application of 50 mg per liter proline increased wheat grain yield.

Treatment
Foliar application of 50 mg L-1 proline (P3)e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar application of 50 mg L-1 proline (P3) increased grain yield and improved water use efficiency to 1.61 kg grains m-3 water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1395–1524 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar proline improved wheat water use efficiency to 1.61 kg grains per cubic meter.

Treatment
Foliar application of 50 mg L-1 proline (P3)e0
Outcome
water use efficiencye0
Direction
improvede0
Value
1.61 kg grains m-3 watere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar application of 50 mg L-1 proline (P3) increased grain yield and improved water use efficiency to 1.61 kg grains m-3 water.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1395–1524 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Drought by proline interaction was not statistically significant in wheat.

Outcome
interactions between drought stress and proline concentratione0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“interactions between drought stress and proline concentration were not statistically significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1534–1630 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sham 6 outperformed Ibaa 99 and Adnaniyah in most wheat growth and yield traits.

Material
Sham 6e0
Outcome
most growth and yield parameterse0
Direction
outperformede0
Comparator
Ibaa 99 and Adnaniyahe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sham 6 consistently outperformed Ibaa 99 and Adnaniyah across most growth and yield parameters.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1632–1727 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–64 · show in text ↑

proline · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

proline · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

17 papers: 17 positive, 0 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

application · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

51 papers: 49 positive, 2 negative or no effect

48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 papers →

application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

794 papers in the same direction as this paper · 75 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

873 papers more in this group

See all 877 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.