Abstract
Intensified kernel position effect is a common phenomenon in maize production under higher plant density, which limits the crop productivity. Subsoiling is considered as an effective agronomic practice to improve crop productivity. In order to clarify the effect of subsoiling before winter wheat on kernel position effect of densely grown summer maize and its regulatory mechanism, field experiments were conducted during 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 growing seasons by using a split-plot design. Main plot include two tillage practices: conventional tillage practice (CT) and subsoiling before winter wheat (SS); subplot consist three plant densities (D1-D3, 6.0×104, 7.5×104, and D3, 9.0×104 plants ha-1). Compared with CT, SS alleviated the kernel position effect by increasing the weight ratio of inferior to superior kernel (WR) of D2 and D3 treated plants. The higher WR of SS treated plants attribute largely to the improved filling of inferior kernel. Under the same plant density, SS significantly improved the root dry matter accumulation (DMA) and antioxidant enzyme activities (SOD and POD), and reduced malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, especially for the plants grown under higher plant densities. These result indicated that SS delayed the root senescence, which is associated with the reduced soil bulk density. In addition, by comparison with CT, SS increased the leaf chlorophyll content from 20 days after silking to physiological maturity and post-silking leaf area duration, and decreased post-silking leaf chlorophyll reduction rate and leaf area reduction rate, reflecting the post-silking leaf senescence is alleviated. Under the same plant density, the post-silking DMA of SS was obviously higher than that of CT, which is probably related to the improved leaf area duration and photosynthetic enzyme activity (PEPC and Rubisco). The correlation analysis revealed that the main mechanism of SS in alleviating kernel position effect of densely grown summer maize is: SS delayed the post-silking root-shoot senescence by regulating soil physical properties, and further improved the post-silking DMA and filling of inferior kernel, ultimately alleviated the kernel position effect and improved grain yield. The present result will provide a new theoretical support for the promotion of summer maize yield by subsoiling before winter wheat.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Subsoiling raised the inferior to superior kernel weight ratio at D2 and D3.
- Treatment
- SSe0
- Outcome
- weight ratio of inferior to superior kernele0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Qualifier
- D2 and D3e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CT, SS alleviated the kernel position effect by increasing the weight ratio of inferior to superior kernel (WR) of D2 and D3 treated plants”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling improved filling of inferior kernels.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher WR of SS treated plants attribute largely to the improved filling of inferior kernel”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling increased root dry matter accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under the same plant density, SS significantly improved the root dry matter accumulation (DMA) and antioxidant enzyme activities (SOD and POD)”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling increased root SOD and POD activities.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under the same plant density, SS significantly improved the root dry matter accumulation (DMA) and antioxidant enzyme activities (SOD and POD)”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling reduced malondialdehyde concentration.
- Treatment
- SSt1
- Outcome
- malondialdehyde (MDA) concentratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- higher plant densitiese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and reduced malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, especially for the plants grown under higher plant densities”
t0“summer maize”
t1“Under the same plant density, SS”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling was interpreted to delay root senescence in association with lower soil bulk density.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SS delayed the root senescence, which is associated with the reduced soil bulk density”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling increased leaf chlorophyll content after silking.
- Treatment
- SSe0
- Outcome
- leaf chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- from 20 days after silking to physiological maturitye0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by comparison with CT, SS increased the leaf chlorophyll content from 20 days after silking to physiological maturity”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling increased post-silking leaf area duration.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by comparison with CT, SS increased the leaf chlorophyll content from 20 days after silking to physiological maturity and post-silking leaf area duration”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling decreased post-silking chlorophyll reduction rate.
- Treatment
- SSe0
- Outcome
- post-silking leaf chlorophyll reduction ratee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- CTt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SS increased the leaf chlorophyll content from 20 days after silking to physiological maturity and post-silking leaf area duration, and decreased post-silking leaf chlorophyll reduction rate and leaf area reduction rate”
t0“summer maize”
t1“by comparison with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling decreased post-silking leaf area reduction rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and decreased post-silking leaf chlorophyll reduction rate and leaf area reduction rate”
t0“summer maize”
t1“SS increased the leaf chlorophyll content”
e1“by comparison with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling increased post-silking dry matter accumulation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under the same plant density, the post-silking DMA of SS was obviously higher than that of CT”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher post-silking accumulation was attributed tentatively to leaf area duration and photosynthetic enzyme activity.
- Outcome
- post-silking DMAt1
- Qualifier
- improved leaf area duration and photosynthetic enzyme activity (PEPC and Rubisco)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which is probably related to the improved leaf area duration and photosynthetic enzyme activity (PEPC and Rubisco)”
t0“summer maize”
t1“the post-silking DMA of SS”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose that delayed root-shoot senescence and greater inferior kernel filling explain improved grain yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SS delayed the post-silking root-shoot senescence by regulating soil physical properties, and further improved the post-silking DMA and filling of inferior kernel, ultimately alleviated the kernel position effect and improved grain yield”
t0“summer maize”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Triticum aestivum · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →Triticum aestivum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →Triticum aestivum · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
tillage · physiology: oxidative · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
tillage · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →tillage · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.