ArticlePloS one2021
Chlorophyll content and fluorescence as physiological parameters for monitoring Orobanche foetida Poir. infection in faba bean.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Potential physiological tolerance mechanisms in faba bean toFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Article
- A Biostimulant Based on Silicon Chelates Enhances Growth and Modulates Physiological Responses of In-Vitro-Derived Strawberry Plants to In Vivo Conditions.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Unveiling Fatty Acid Profiles of the Parasitic PlantsPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Large Field Screening for Resistance to Broomrape (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Unlocking the hepatoprotective potential of the parasitic plantFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Effects of Wood-Derived Biochar on Germination, Physiology, and Growth of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and Turkey Oak (Quercus cerris L.)Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orobanche spp. are root parasitic plants that cause yield losses in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). In Tunisia, O. crenata and O. foetida are among the major problems limiting faba bean production and productivity. Breeding for resistance and development of resistant varieties remain the most efficient control strategy to combat these parasites. In our study, field trials were conducted over two consecutive cropping seasons. A set of 42 genotypes were used in this study; 39 advanced lines and three checks; Najeh and Baraca (resistant) and Badi (susceptible). The trials were conducted in highly infested O. foetida plot at Oued-Beja Research Station in Tunisia. Results showed that advanced lines XAR-VF00.13-1-2-1-2-1 and XBJ90.04-2-3-1-1-1-2A expressed high resistance level exceeding those recorded for resistance checks Najeh and Baraca. O. foetida significantly affected the biomass, grain yield, chlorophyll content index (CCI) and the maximum quantum efficiency (Fv/Fm ratio). No significant effect was observed on host plant water content (WC). CCI decreases varied from 46.4% for the susceptible check Badi and 4.2% and 9.3%, respectively, for Baraca and XBJ90.04-2-3-1-1-1-2A. Orobanche parasitism resulted in a slight decreases of Fv/Fm ratio for the advanced lines XBJ90.04-2-3-1-1-1-2A and XAR-VF00.13-1-2-1-2-1 against important decreases observed for Badi and Baraca. Correlation between resistance to O. foetida and CCI and Fv/Fm makes this, easy-to-measure, parameter very useful as a practical screening tool for early parasitism detection, diagnosis and identification and selection of high resistant plants against this parasite.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.