↓ Skip to main content

A low-cost method to rapidly and accurately screen for transpiration efficiency in wheat

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A low-cost method to rapidly and accurately screen for transpiration efficiency in wheat
Published in
Plant Methods, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13007-018-0339-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Fletcher, Jack Christopher, Mal Hunter, Greg Rebetzke, Karine Chenu

Abstract

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity is commonly limited by the availability of water. Increasing transpiration efficiency (biomass produced per unit of water used, TE) can potentially lead to increased grain yield in water-limited environments ('more crop per drop'). Currently, the ability to screen large populations for TE is limited by slow, low-throughput and/or expensive screening procedures. Here, we propose a low-cost, low-technology, rapid, and scalable method to screen for TE. The method uses a Pot-in-Bucket system that allows continuous watering of the pots and frequent monitoring of water use. To investigate the robustness of the method across environments, and to determine the shortest trial duration required to get accurate and repeatable TE estimates in wheat, plants from 11 genotypes varying in phenology were sown at three dates and grown for different durations in a polyhouse with partial environmental control. The method revealed significant genotypic variations in TE among the 11 studied wheat genotypes. Genotype rankings for TE were consistent when plants were harvested the same day, at the flag-leaf stage or later. For these harvests, genotype rankings were consistent across experiments despite changes in environmental conditions, such as evaporative demand. These results indicate that (1) the Pot-In-Bucket system is suitable to screen TE for breeding purposes in populations with varying phenology, (2) multiple short trials can be carried out within a season to allow increased throughput of genotypes for TE screening, and (3) root biomass measurement is not required to screen for TE, as whole-plant TE and shoot-only TE are highly correlated, at least in wheat. The method is particularly relevant in developing countries where low-cost and relatively high labour input may be most applicable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 30%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 49%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,648,325
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#966
of 1,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,504
of 335,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#28
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.