Abstract
Maize ( Zea mays L.) kernel hardness is of utmost importance for dry‐milling processors. Zeins, maize prolamins, are known to be key proteins affecting this trait. We investigated the response of kernel zein profiles to N fertilization in maize hybrids with contrasting kernel hardness (measured as test weight, vitreousness, kernel density, and floaters percentage). A field experiment was done during two seasons, with three N fertilization treatments and four commercial hybrids with different hardness (two flint and two dent kernel types). We also measured yield, kernel protein concentration, and zein profiles (Z2, or γ and β, and Z1, or α and δ). Flint kernel type always yielded less and showed higher kernel hardness indicators when compared with dents ( P < 0.01). N fertilization helped increase yield and kernel hardness in both kernel types. Flint kernel type had consistently more Z2 than dents, while only in 1 yr Z1 was higher in flints. Dent kernel type had a Z1/Z2 ratio similar to or higher than flints. Increasing N resulted in increased concentration of both zein types, but the effect was more pronounced on Z1. Significant correlations were observed between the different zein types (Z1 and Z2) and hardness indicators and total protein concentration, but Z2 showed the highest correlations with all kernel hardness traits. Our results expand previous knowledge on genotype and N fertilization effects over zein profiles and their involvement in kernel physical characteristics relevant for dry milling.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Flint maize yielded less than dent maize.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flint kernel type always yielded less and showed higher kernel hardness indicators when compared with dents ( P < 0.01)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flint maize had higher kernel hardness indicators than dent maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flint kernel type always yielded less and showed higher kernel hardness indicators when compared with dents ( P < 0.01)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased maize yield in both kernel types.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N fertilization helped increase yield and kernel hardness in both kernel types”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilization increased maize kernel hardness in both kernel types.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N fertilization helped increase yield and kernel hardness in both kernel types”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flint kernels consistently had more Z2 than dent kernels.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flint kernel type had consistently more Z2 than dents”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Z1 was higher in flint than dent kernels in only one year.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only in 1 yr Z1 was higher in flints”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dent kernels had a Z1/Z2 ratio similar to or higher than flint kernels.
- Material
- Dent kernel typee0
- Outcome
- Z1/Z2 ratioe0
- Direction
- similar to or higher thane0
- Comparator
- flintse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dent kernel type had a Z1/Z2 ratio similar to or higher than flints”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nitrogen increased Z1 concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing N resulted in increased concentration of both zein types, but the effect was more pronounced on Z1”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nitrogen increased Z2 concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing N resulted in increased concentration of both zein types, but the effect was more pronounced on Z1”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zein types correlated significantly with hardness indicators and total protein concentration.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant correlations were observed between the different zein types (Z1 and Z2) and hardness indicators and total protein concentration”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Z2 had the highest correlations with all kernel hardness traits.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Z2 showed the highest correlations with all kernel hardness traits”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.