Claim · model-written summary
Type I apical kernel weight and volume did not differ significantly from complete or natural pollination kernels.
- Outcome
- weight and volumee0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- the treatment of complete pollination at the same time and the treatment of natural pollinatione0
Zea maysNot reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the apical kernel of type I,there were no significant differences in weight and volume compared with the middle or basal kernel of the treatment of complete pollination at the same time and the treatment of natural pollination”
t0“Maize”
Title
Feng Han ACTA AGRONOMICA SINICA 2011
Other claims from this paper (12)
- Intervention effect Controlled pollination improved apical kernel weight and volume.
- Intervention effect Controlled pollination decreased ear kernel number.
- Intervention effect Controlled pollination decreased ear kernel weight.
- Observation Apical kernels had the smallest weight and volume on an ear.
- Intervention effect Type II increased kernel setting rate.
- Intervention effect Type III increased kernel setting rate.
- Association In type II, kernel dry weight correlated positively with setting rate.
- Association In type II, kernel volume correlated positively with setting rate.
- Association In type III, kernel dry weight correlated negatively with setting rate.
- Association In type III, kernel volume correlated negatively with setting rate.
- Mechanism Nutrient shortage may explain apical kernel abortion and low weight.
- Recommendation Enlarging source and sink was proposed to improve ear kernel weight.