Abstract
The objectives of this work were to: a), establish whether maize yield in Balcarce (Argentina 3745'LS; 5818'LO) is limited by the source of assimilates or by the number and size of the reproductive sinks; b), establish whether hybrids that differ in length of the growing cycle present differences in their source-sink relationships; c), de- termine to what extent the evolution of carbohydrate (CH) reserves in the plant is modified by different source-sink re- lationships. The experiment was conducted at Balcarce over a 2-year period with 2 hybrids (short season: SPS 240, long season: D2F11). The treatments consisted of 2 levels of source reduction (45 and 55% shading during the grain filling period, GFS), 2 levels of reproductive sink reduction (45 and 55% shading aroung flowering, FS) and an un- shaded control. The different shading treatments had a constant reduction of radiation with variable shading duration (30-38 days). The results indicate the existence of a colimitation by source of assimilates and reproductive sinks be- cause grain yield dropped similarly in response to shading during the flowering and the grain filling periods. FS re- duced grain number/unit area and slightly increased 1 000 kernel weight. GFS reduced 1 000 kernel weight, and to a lesser extent grain number/unit area. The study of dry matter and CH accumulation or remobilization in response to shading at the R3-R5 period, relative to those of the control treatment, was useful to indicate trends toward sink or source limitations. Relative to the control, shading at any period produced a decrease in stem CH content during the treatment period. During the post-shading period, the FS treatments presented a greater CH accumulation in stems than the control. This is explained by the decrease in reproductive sink number that produced a drop in their demand of CH and by the increased importance of the stem as an alternative sink for assimilates. GFS treatments produced a strong increase in CH remobilization rate from stem during the treatment period. The 2 hybrids did not show statisti- cally significant differences in their source-sink relationship. Nevertheless, a tendency toward a source limitation was evident in the long season hybrid.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage shading reduced grain yield similarly to grain-filling shading.
- Treatment
- shading during the floweringe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- droppede0
- Comparator
- the grain filling periodse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield dropped similarly in response to shading during the flowering and the grain filling periods.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage shading reduced grain number per unit area.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“FS re- duced grain number/unit area and slightly increased 1 000 kernel weight.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage shading slightly increased 1,000-kernel weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“FS re- duced grain number/unit area and slightly increased 1 000 kernel weight.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain-filling shading reduced 1,000-kernel weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GFS reduced 1 000 kernel weight, and to a lesser extent grain number/unit area.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain-filling shading reduced grain number per unit area to a lesser extent.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GFS reduced 1 000 kernel weight, and to a lesser extent grain number/unit area.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading at either period reduced stem carbohydrate content during treatment.
- Treatment
- shading at any periode0
- Outcome
- stem CH contente0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- during the treatment periode0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to the control, shading at any period produced a decrease in stem CH content during the treatment period.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After flowering-stage shading, stems accumulated more carbohydrates than controls.
- Treatment
- FS treatmentse0
- Outcome
- CH accumulation in stemse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- post-shading periode0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the post-shading period, the FS treatments presented a greater CH accumulation in stems than the control.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain-filling shading strongly increased carbohydrate remobilization from stems.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GFS treatments produced a strong increase in CH remobilization rate from stem during the treatment period.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The two hybrids had no statistically significant difference in source-sink relationships.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 2 hybrids did not show statisti- cally significant differences in their source-sink relationship.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The long-season hybrid tended toward source limitation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a tendency toward a source limitation was evident in the long season hybrid.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
shade · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →shade · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →stage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
94 papers more in this group
See all 98 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.