Abstract
Abstract Maximum photosynthetic rate ( P max in Zea mays L. was reduced to a much greater extent by neutral shading during growth than in the shade‐adapted C 4 grass Paspalum conjugatum Berg., although under a high light regime the P max of Z. mays was two‐fold higher than that of P. conjugatum. In both species the shade‐induced reductions of P max were not of stomatal origin since the intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ) was not decreased by growth under low light levels. The C i of P. conjugatum (∼200 μPa Pa −1 ) measured at air levels of CO 2 and high photon flux densities was 30% greater than that of Z. mays and, concomitantly, leaf water use efficiency was less. As with P max , specific leaf weight, leaf thickness and chlorenchyma volume were reduced to a greater extent by shading in Z. mays than in P. conjugatum. In contrast to Z. mays , bundle sheath chloroplasts of P. conjugatum contained well‐defined stacks of grana. Mesophyll chloroplasts of P. conjugatum developed under a high light regime also contained large amounts of starch. This was not the case with Z. mays.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced maximum photosynthetic rate more in maize than Paspalum.
- Treatment
- neutral shading during growthe0
- Outcome
- Maximum photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- Paspalum conjugatum Berg.e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum photosynthetic rate ( P max in Zea mays L. was reduced to a much greater extent by neutral shading during growth than in the shade‐adapted C 4 grass Paspalum conjugatum Berg.”
Claim · model-written summary
In high light, maize maximum photosynthetic rate was twice Paspalum’s.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under a high light regime the P max of Z. mays was two‐fold higher than that of P. conjugatum”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light did not decrease intercellular CO2 concentration in either species.
- Treatment
- growth under low light levelse0
- Outcome
- intercellular CO 2 concentratione0
- Direction
- not decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both species the shade‐induced reductions of P max were not of stomatal origin since the intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ) was not decreased by growth under low light levels”
t0“in Zea mays L. was reduced”
Claim · model-written summary
Paspalum intercellular CO2 concentration was 30% greater than maize under high photon flux.
- Taxon
- P. conjugatum
Paspalum conjugatume0 - Outcome
- C ie0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Qualifier
- ∼200 μPa Pa −1e0
- Comparator
- Z. mayse0
- Setting
- high photon flux densitiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The C i of P. conjugatum (∼200 μPa Pa −1 ) measured at air levels of CO 2 and high photon flux densities was 30% greater than that of Z. mays”
Claim · model-written summary
Paspalum leaf water use efficiency was lower than maize.
- Taxon
- Paspalum conjugatum Berg.Paspalum conjugatumt0
- Outcome
- leaf water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- lesse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf water use efficiency was less”
t0“grass Paspalum conjugatum Berg.”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced specific leaf weight, leaf thickness and chlorenchyma volume more in maize.
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- specific leaf weight, leaf thickness and chlorenchyma volumee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- P. conjugatume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“specific leaf weight, leaf thickness and chlorenchyma volume were reduced to a greater extent by shading in Z. mays than in P. conjugatum”
Claim · model-written summary
Paspalum bundle sheath chloroplasts had well-defined grana stacks, unlike maize.
- Taxon
- P. conjugatumPaspalum conjugatume0
- Organ / stage
- bundle sheath chloroplastse0
- Outcome
- well‐defined stacks of granae0
- Comparator
- Z. mayse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In contrast to Z. mays , bundle sheath chloroplasts of P. conjugatum contained well‐defined stacks of grana”
Claim · model-written summary
High-light Paspalum mesophyll chloroplasts contained abundant starch, unlike maize.
- Taxon
- P. conjugatumPaspalum conjugatume0
- Organ / stage
- Mesophyll chloroplastse0
- Outcome
- large amounts of starche0
- Comparator
- Z. mayse0
- Setting
- high light regimee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mesophyll chloroplasts of P. conjugatum developed under a high light regime also contained large amounts of starch. This was not the case with Z. mays.”
The same questions in other papers
shade · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →light · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
shade · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.