The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The role of root architectural traits in adaptation of wheat to water-limited environments
Open accessAbstract
Better understanding of root system structure and function is critical to crop improvement in water-limited environments. The aims of this study were to examine root system characteristics of two wheat genotypes contrasting in tolerance to water limitation and to assess the functional implications on adaptation to water-limited environments of any differences found. The drought tolerant barley variety, Mackay, was also included to allow inter-species comparison. Single plants were grown in large, soil-filled root-observation chambers. Root growth was monitored by digital imaging and water extraction was measured. Root architecture differed markedly among the genotypes. The drought-tolerant wheat (cv. SeriM82) had a compact root system, while roots of barley cv. Mackay occupied the largest soil volume. Relative to the standard wheat variety (Hartog), SeriM82 had a more uniform rooting pattern and greater root length at depth. Despite the more compact root architecture of SeriM82, total water extracted did not differ between wheat genotypes. To quantify the value of these adaptive traits, a simulation analysis was conducted with the cropping system model APSIM, for a wide range of environments in southern Queensland, Australia. The analysis indicated a mean relative yield benefit of 14.5% in water-deficit seasons. Each additional millimetre of water extracted during grain filling generated an extra 55 kg ha–1 of grain yield. The functional implications of root traits on temporal patterns and total amount of water capture, and their importance in crop adaptation to specific water-limited environments, are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: What should we breed for?
ARAUS, J. L. (2002) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcf049 · Cited by 1,243 · cited 2×
“Similarly, Bengough et al. (2004) observed a relatively narrower angular spread of seminal roots in wild barley when compared with modern cultivars.”
BackgroundFischer, R. A., Rees, D., Sayre, K. D., Lu, Z. ‐., Condon, A. G., & Saavedra, A. L. (1998) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183x003800060011x · Cited by 887 · cited 1×
“Desirable root traits that are usually expressed at later stages of crop development, such as greater distribution of roots at depth and uniform root branching pattern, appear to be less suitable for large-scale, cost-effective screening programs, unless they can be reliably linked with surrogate measures such as cano…”
BackgroundChapman, S. C., Cooper, M., & Hammer, G. L. (2002) · Australian Journal of Agricultural Research · doi:10.1071/ar01070 · Cited by 103
Self-citation
Cited by
Hammer, G. L., Dong, Z., McLean, G., Doherty, A., Messina, C., Schussler, J., Zinselmeier, C., Paszkiewicz, S., & Cooper, M. (2009) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.03.0152 · Cited by 745
Self-citationOn the Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Soil Moisture at the Field Scale
Vereecken, H., Huisman, J. A., Pachepsky, Y., Montzka, C., van der Kruk, J., Bogena, H., Weihermüller, L., Herbst, M., Martinez, G., & Vanderborght, J. (2014) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.061 · Cited by 584
Genetic and genomic tools to improve drought tolerance in wheat
Fleury, D., Jefferies, S., Kuchel, H., & Langridge, P. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erq152 · Cited by 549
Manschadi, A. M., Hammer, G. L., Christopher, J. T., & deVoil, P. (2008) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9492-1 · Cited by 458
Self-citationNezhadahmadi, A., Prodhan, Z. H., & Faruq, G. (2013) · The Scientific World Journal · doi:10.1155/2013/610721 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Manschadi, A. M., Christopher, J., deVoil, P., & Hammer, G. L.
- Venue
- Functional Plant Biology
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2006-09-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 823-837
- ISSN
- 1445-4408 (ISSN-L)
- 1445-4416
- OpenAlex
- W2093148199
- Cited by
- 656
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.85
- 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
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.