The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chickpea genotypes contrasting for seed yield under terminal drought stress in the field differ for traits related to the control of water use
Abstract
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is often exposed to terminal drought, and deep, profuse rooting has been proposed as the main breeding target to improve terminal drought tolerance. This work tested whether plant water use at the vegetative stage and under non-limited water conditions could relate to the degree of sensitivity of chickpea to terminal drought. Transpiration response to a range of vapour pressure deficits under controlled and outdoor conditions was measured with canopy conductance using gravimetric measurements and thermal imagery in eight chickpea genotypes with comparable phenology and contrasting seed yield under terminal drought in the field. Additionally, the response of plant growth and transpiration to progressive soil moisture depletion was assayed in the same genotypes. Drought-tolerant genotypes had a lower canopy conductance under fully irrigated conditions at the vegetative stage; this trend was reversed at the early pod filling stage. While two sensitive genotypes had high early growth vigour and leaf development, there was a trend of lower growth in tolerant genotypes under progressive soil drying than in sensitive ones. Tolerant genotypes also exhibited a decline of transpiration in wetter soil compared to sensitive genotypes. Canopy conductance could be proxied by measuring leaf temperature with an infrared camera, although the relationship lost sensitivity at the pod filling stage. This work suggests that some traits contribute to water saving when water does not limit plant growth and development in drought-tolerant chickpea. It is hypothesised that this water would be available for the reproduction and grain filling stages.
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
Cited by
Management of crop water under drought: a review
Bodner, G., Nakhforoosh, A., & Kaul, H.-P. (2015) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0283-4 · Cited by 629
Phenotyping for drought tolerance of crops in the genomics era
Tuberosa, R. (2012) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2012.00347 · Cited by 558
Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops
Mir, R. R., Zaman-Allah, M., Sreenivasulu, N., Trethowan, R., & Varshney, R. K. (2012) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-012-1904-9 · Cited by 477
Self-citationRoot hydraulics: The forgotten side of roots in drought adaptation
Vadez, V. (2014) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2014.03.017 · Cited by 306
Self-citationPrognosis for genetic improvement of yield potential and water-limited yield of major grain crops
Hall, A. J., & Richards, R. A. (2013) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2012.05.014 · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Authors
- Zaman-Allah, M., Jenkinson, D. M., & Vadez, V.
- Venue
- Functional Plant Biology
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2011-04-08
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 270-281
- ISSN
- 1445-4408 (ISSN-L)
- 1445-4416
- OpenAlex
- W2108183654
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Chickpea genotypes contrasting for seed yield under terminal drought stress in the field differ for traits related to the control of water use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/fp10244
- The paper
- Zaman-Allah, M., Jenkinson, D. M., & Vadez, V. (2011). Chickpea genotypes contrasting for seed yield under terminal drought stress in the field differ for traits related to the control of water use. Functional Plant Biology. https://doi.org/10.1071/fp10244
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.