Abstract
Water deficits during anthesis cause maize ( Zea mays L.) kernels to abort soon after fertilization. Inhibition of photosynthesis accounts for much of the kernel loss, but lack of assimilate reserves might also limit kernel development. We tested whether varying the level of C and N reserves prior to anthesis affected kernel set of plants pollinated at low water potential (Ψ v ). Plants were grown in sand/soil media in pots in the field under one of three light environments: Control, 75‐cm rows, 4.3 plants m −2 ; Shade, same as Control except under 55% shade cloth from V6 until maturity; or Isolated, 122‐cm rows, 0.7 plants m −2 . These treatments produced a 3.3‐fold range in total extractable carbohydrate (TEC) and a 1.7‐fold range in total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) per plant at silk emergence. Water was withheld at silk emergence and plants were pollinated by hand with excess pollen 4 d later when silk Ψ w was = −1.1 MPa, leaf Ψ w was = −1.8 MPa, and photosynthesis was completely inhibited. Plants were rewatered 2 d after pollination and remained well watered until physiological maturity. The brief water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 45% in the Controls, 72% in the Shade treatment, and 49% in the Isolated treatment. Lower kernel set in the Shade treatment was associated with low levels of TEC and TKN in the vegetative stalk, leaves, and reproductive stalk, compared with Control plants. However, accumulation of TEC and TKN in excess of Control values in the Isolated plants did not prevent kernel loss. Kernel set in all three treatments was more closely related to the rate of photosynthesis prior to imposing the water deficit than to the level of reserves accumulated prior to flowering. These results suggest that selection for high levels of reserves at pollination will not improve kernel set at low Ψ w in maize.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
The light treatments produced a 3.3-fold range in total extractable carbohydrate.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These treatments produced a 3.3‐fold range in total extractable carbohydrate (TEC)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The light treatments produced a 1.7-fold range in total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 1.7‐fold range in total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 45% in control plants.
- Treatment
- brief water deficite0
- Outcome
- kernels per eare0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 45%e0
- Comparator
- Controlse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The brief water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 45% in the Controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 72% under shade.
- Treatment
- brief water deficite0
- Outcome
- kernels per eare0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 72%e0
- Comparator
- Shade treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The brief water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 45% in the Controls, 72% in the Shade treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 49% in isolated plants.
- Treatment
- brief water deficite0
- Outcome
- kernels per eare0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 49%e0
- Comparator
- Isolated treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The brief water deficit decreased kernels per ear by 45% in the Controls, 72% in the Shade treatment, and 49% in the Isolated treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower kernel set under shade was associated with low TEC and TKN in vegetative and reproductive tissues.
- Organ / stage
- vegetative stalk, leaves, and reproductive stalke0
- Treatment
- Shade treatmente0
- Outcome
- kernel sete0
- Direction
- Lowere0
- Comparator
- Control plantse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Lower kernel set in the Shade treatment was associated with low levels of TEC and TKN in the vegetative stalk, leaves, and reproductive stalk, compared with Control plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Excess TEC and TKN in isolated plants did not prevent kernel loss.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“accumulation of TEC and TKN in excess of Control values in the Isolated plants did not prevent kernel loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel set was more closely related to prior photosynthesis than to preflowering reserves.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Kernel set in all three treatments was more closely related to the rate of photosynthesis prior to imposing the water deficit than to the level of reserves accumulated prior to flowering”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest selection for high reserves at pollination will not improve kernel set under low water potential.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“selection for high levels of reserves at pollination will not improve kernel set at low Ψ w in maize”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
299 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
349 papers more in this group
See all 353 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.