Abstract
Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and yield components is important for the rational design of agricultural practices as well as breeding strategies. There is little information on how the source or sink limitations during the effective grain-filling period affect final kernel quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of source/sink manipulation in different times after mid-silking stage on kernel weight (KW), kernel number per square meter (KN m−2), kernel protein and oil of different maize hybrids. Field experiments were conducted at the experimental field of College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, located at Bajgah (52° 35′ N and 39° 4′ E and 1810 m above sea level, asl) during the 2008 and 2009 growing seasons. The treatments included three hybrids and defoliation that were arranged in the main, and subplots, respectively. Leaves removal treatments were imposed when plants were at the mid-silking stage. Silking was taken as the time when 50% of the plants in a row presented visible silks. Defoliations included control, 50% of defoliation at 25 (early defoliation), and 35 (late defoliation) days after silking (defoliation treatments were applied to all plants of each plot). The experiments were conducted in randomized complete block (RCB) design with three replications and the treatments in a split-plot arrangement. Early defoliation greatly reduced kernel growth rate and grain filling period, resulting in lower mean kernel weight. Defoliation treatments modified KN m−2 and kernel number per ear (KNPE) and variations in these components affected protein and oil content. Decreased source size by defoliation decreased kernel protein content dramatically with no significant change in oil content. Differences among treatments appeared to be related only to the post-flowering source/sink ratio. Therefore, to improve protein yield in maize, hybrids and agronomic practices should aim to increase the post-flowering source/sink ratio.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Early defoliation reduced kernel growth rate and grain filling period in maize relative to control.
- Treatment
- Early defoliatione1
- Outcome
- kernel growth rate and grain filling periode1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- controle2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e1“Early defoliation greatly reduced kernel growth rate and grain filling period, resulting in lower mean kernel weight”
e2“Defoliations included control, 50% of defoliation at 25 (early defoliation)”
Claim · model-written summary
Early defoliation gave lower mean kernel weight in maize than control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e1“Early defoliation greatly reduced kernel growth rate and grain filling period, resulting in lower mean kernel weight”
e2“Defoliations included control, 50% of defoliation at 25 (early defoliation)”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation treatments modified kernel number per square meter and per ear in maize.
- Treatment
- Defoliation treatmentse3
- Outcome
- KN m−2 and kernel number per ear (KNPE)e3
- Direction
- modifiede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e3“Defoliation treatments modified KN m−2 and kernel number per ear (KNPE) and variations in these components affected protein and oil content”
Claim · model-written summary
Variations in kernel number components affected kernel protein and oil content in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e3“Defoliation treatments modified KN m−2 and kernel number per ear (KNPE) and variations in these components affected protein and oil content”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreased source size by defoliation decreased kernel protein content in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e4“Decreased source size by defoliation decreased kernel protein content dramatically with no significant change in oil content”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreased source size by defoliation gave no significant change in kernel oil content in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e4“Decreased source size by defoliation decreased kernel protein content dramatically with no significant change in oil content”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences among treatments appeared to be related only to the post-flowering source/sink ratio in maize.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaluation of source or sink limitations on maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
e5“Differences among treatments appeared to be related only to the post-flowering source/sink ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrids and agronomic practices should aim to increase the post-flowering source/sink ratio to improve protein yield in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“to improve protein yield in maize, hybrids and agronomic practices should aim to increase the post-flowering source/sink ratio”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: oil · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- no effect
pruning · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →pruning · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.