Abstract
Adverse climatic conditions lead toward reduction in agricultural crop production that is a serious threat for global food security. Reduced irradiance in crop season affects plant physiology, growth and yield. To alleviate shade stress, foliar application of thiourea (TU) has not been comprehensively tested on maize. In this regard, a greenhouse study on maize crop was established with different TU application (as foliar) rates; CK (0 mg L−1), T4 (400 mg L−1), T8 (800 mg L−1) and T16 (1600 mg L−1) under shaded and non-shaded conditions. The results indicated that TU increased physiologically photosynthetic rate (Pn), biochemically chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and leaf water content. In term of nutrient concentration, stem and leaf nitrogen contents were increased by 18.30% and 23.55% respectively in T16 as compared to CK. Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK. However, TU application under shaded environment could not produce similar yield as that of non-shaded plants. Overall, non-shaded plant had 9.71% higher grain yield than that of shaded conditions. But it can be concluded that foliar application of TU at higher concentration could be a promising option to maintain maize productivity under shaded conditions. Furthermore, combination of TU with other plant nutrients should be tested to improve maize growth under shaded conditions.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Thiourea increased maize photosynthetic rate.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“TU increased physiologically photosynthetic rate (Pn), biochemically chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and leaf water content”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Thiourea increased chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and leaf water content.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“TU increased physiologically photosynthetic rate (Pn), biochemically chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and leaf water content”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased stem nitrogen content by 18.30%.
- Organ / stage
- steme0
- Treatment
- T16e0
- Outcome
- nitrogen contentse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18.30%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stem and leaf nitrogen contents were increased by 18.30% and 23.55% respectively in T16 as compared to CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased leaf nitrogen content by 23.55%.
- Organ / stage
- leafe0
- Treatment
- T16e0
- Outcome
- nitrogen contentse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 23.55%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stem and leaf nitrogen contents were increased by 18.30% and 23.55% respectively in T16 as compared to CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased plant height by 5.10% versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased stem diameter by 11.90% versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased stem fresh weight by 5.16% versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased stem dry weight by 5.22% versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased 100-kernel weight by 23.58% versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T16 increased grain yield by 9.08% versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, higher amount of TU (T16) increased plant height (5.10%), stem diameter (11.90%), stem fresh weight (5.16%), stem dry weight (5.22%), 100-kernel weight (23.58%) and grain yield (9.08%) than that of CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Thiourea under shade did not achieve the yield of non-shaded maize.
- Treatment
- TU application under shaded environmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- could not produce similare0
- Comparator
- non-shaded plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“TU application under shaded environment could not produce similar yield as that of non-shaded plants”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-shaded maize had 9.71% higher grain yield than shaded maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“non-shaded plant had 9.71% higher grain yield than that of shaded conditions”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose high-concentration foliar thiourea to maintain shaded maize productivity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“foliar application of TU at higher concentration could be a promising option to maintain maize productivity under shaded conditions”
The same questions in other papers
thiourea · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →thiourea · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
thiourea · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →shade · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →climate site · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 102 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 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.