Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening techniques and sources of resistance to abiotic stresses in cool-season food legumes

Open access
Stoddard, F. L., Balko, C., Erskine, W., Khan, H. R., Link, W., Sarker, A.·2006·Euphytica

Abstract

SummaryThe adaptability and productivity of cool-season food legumes (chickpea, faba bean, lentil, pea) are limited by major abiotic stresses including drought, heat, frost, chilling, waterlogging, salinity and mineral toxicities. The severity of these stresses is unpredictable in field experiments, so field trials are increasingly supplemented with controlled-environment testing and physiological screening. For drought testing, irrigation is used in dry fields and rain-out shelters in damp ones. Carbon isotope discrimination (Δ13C) is a well-established screen for drought tolerance in C3 cereal crops which is now being validated for use in grain legumes, but it is relatively expensive per sample and more economical methods include stomatal conductance and canopy temperature. Chickpea lines ICC4958 and FLIP87-59C and faba bean line ILB938 have demonstrated good drought tolerance parameters in different experiments. For frost tolerance, an efficient controlled-environment procedure involves exposing hardened pot-grown plants to sub-zero temperatures. Faba beans Cote d’Or and BPL4628 as well as lentil ILL5865 have demonstrated good freezing tolerance in such tests. Chilling-tolerance tests are more commonly conducted in the field and lentil line ILL1878 as well as derivatives of interspecific crosses between chickpea and its wild relatives have repeatedly shown good results. The timing of chilling is particularly important as temperatures which are not lethal to the plant can greatly disrupt fertilization of flowers. Salinity response can be determined using hydroponic methods with a sand or gravel substrate and rapid, efficient scoring is based on leaf symptoms. Many lines of chickpea, faba bean and lentil have shown good salinity tolerance in a single article but none has become a benchmark. Waterlogging tolerance can be evaluated using paired hydroponic systems, one oxygenated and the other de-oxygenated. The development of lysigenous cavities or aerenchyma in roots, common in warm-season legumes, is reported in pea and lentil but is not well established in chickpea or faba bean. Many stresses are associated with oxidative damage leading to changes in chlorophyll fluorescence, membrane stability and peroxidase levels. An additional factor relevant to the legumes is the response of the symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria to the stress.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10681-006-4723-8

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Stoddard, F. L., Balko, C., Erskine, W., Khan, H. R., Link, W., & Sarker, A.
Venue
Euphytica
Published
2006-01
Volume
147
Issue
1-2
Pages
167-186
ISSN
  • 0014-2336 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5060
OpenAlex
W2014359311
Cited by
212
References
2
FWCI
8.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening techniques and sources of resistance to abiotic stresses in cool-season food legumes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10681-006-4723-8
The paper
Stoddard, F. L., Balko, C., Erskine, W., Khan, H. R., Link, W., & Sarker, A. (2006). Screening techniques and sources of resistance to abiotic stresses in cool-season food legumes. Euphytica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-4723-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.