Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26396590›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology for biofuels2015

Assessment of drought tolerance of 49 switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) genotypes using physiological and morphological parameters.

Yiming Liu, Xunzhong Zhang, Hong Tran, Liang Shan, Jeongwoon Kim, Kevin Childs, Erik H Ervin, Taylor Frazier, Bingyu Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Virulence and Genetic Diversity ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Genetic modification ofPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yiming LiuDepartment of Crop and Soil Environmental Science, Virginia Tech, 367 Smyth Hall, 185 Ag Quad Ln, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.
Xunzhong ZhangDepartment of Crop and Soil Environmental Science, Virginia Tech, 367 Smyth Hall, 185 Ag Quad Ln, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.
Hong TranDepartment of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA.
Liang ShanDepartment of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA.
Jeongwoon KimDepartment of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Kevin ChildsDepartment of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA ; Center for Genomics-Enabled Plant Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
Erik H ErvinDepartment of Crop and Soil Environmental Science, Virginia Tech, 367 Smyth Hall, 185 Ag Quad Ln, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.
Taylor FrazierDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Tech, 407 Latham Hall, 220 Ag Quad Ln, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.
Bingyu ZhaoDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Tech, 407 Latham Hall, 220 Ag Quad Ln, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSwitchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is a warm-season C4 grass that is a target lignocellulosic biofuel species. In many regions, drought stress is one of the major limiting factors for switchgrass growth. The objective of this study was to evaluate the drought tolerance of 49 switchgrass genotypes. The relative drought stress tolerance was determined based on a set of parameters including plant height, leaf length, leaf width, leaf sheath length, leaf relative water content (RWC), electrolyte leakage (EL), photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (g s), transpiration rate (Tr), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), and water use efficiency (WUE).

resultsSRAP marker analysis determined that the selected 49 switchgrass genotypes represent a diverse genetic pool of switchgrass germplasm. Principal component analysis (PCA) and drought stress indexes (DSI) of each physiological parameter showed significant differences in the drought stress tolerance among the 49 genotypes. Heatmap and PCA data revealed that physiological parameters are more sensitive than morphological parameters in distinguishing the control and drought treatments. Metabolite profiling data found that under drought stress, the five best drought-tolerant genotypes tended to have higher levels of abscisic acid (ABA), spermine, trehalose, and fructose in comparison to the five most drought-sensitive genotypes.

conclusionBased on PCA ranking value, the genotypes TEM-SEC, TEM-LoDorm, BN-13645-64, Alamo, BN-10860-61, BN-12323-69, TEM-SLC, T-2086, T-2100, T-2101, Caddo, and Blackwell-1 had relatively higher ranking values, indicating that they are more tolerant to drought. In contrast, the genotypes Grif Nebraska 28, Grenville-2, Central Iowa Germplasm, Cave-in-Rock, Dacotah, and Nebraska 28 were found to be relatively sensitive to drought stress. By analyzing physiological response parameters and different metabolic profiles, the methods utilized in this study identified drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive switchgrass genotypes. These results provide a foundation for future research directed at understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying switchgrass tolerance to drought.

Indexed as

Drought toleranceGenetic diversityGermplasmMetabolitesPanicum virgatumPCASRAP marker

Identifiers

PMID26396590
PMCPMC4578271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.