↓ Skip to main content

Genetic analysis of water loss of excised leaves associated with drought tolerance in wheat

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Genetic analysis of water loss of excised leaves associated with drought tolerance in wheat
Published in
PeerJ, July 2018
DOI 10.7717/peerj.5063
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilona Mieczysława Czyczyło-Mysza, Izabela Marcińska, Edyta Skrzypek, Jan Bocianowski, Kinga Dziurka, Dragana Rančić, Radenko Radošević, Sofija Pekić-Quarrie, Dejan Dodig, Stephen Alexander Quarrie

Abstract

Wheat is widely affected by drought. Low excised-leaf water loss (ELWL) has frequently been associated with improved grain yield under drought. This study dissected the genetic control of ELWL in wheat, associated physiological, morphological and anatomical leaf traits, and compared these with yield QTLs. Ninety-four hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) doubled haploids, mapped with over 700 markers, were tested for three years for ELWL from detached leaf 4 of glasshouse-grown plants. In one experiment, stomata per unit area and leaf thickness parameters from leaf cross-sections were measured. QTLs were identified using QTLCartographer. ELWL was significantly negatively correlated with leaf length, width, area and thickness. Major QTLs for ELWL during 0-3 h and 3-6 h were coincident across trials on 3A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 5D, 6B, 7A, 7B, 7D and frequently coincident (inversely) with leaf size QTLs. Yield in other trials was sometimes associated with ELWL and leaf size phenotypically and genotypically, but more frequently under non-droughted than droughted conditions. QTL coincidence showed only ELWL to be associated with drought/control yield ratio. Our results demonstrated that measures of ELWL and leaf size were equally effective predictors of yield, and both were more useful for selecting under favourable than stressed conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Mathematics 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%

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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,286,971
of 13,221,142 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#5,299
of 7,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,007
of 266,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#417
of 614 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,221,142 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 266,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 614 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.