Paper · 2009 · Crop Science

Growth Analysis of Biomass Production in Sole‐Crop and Double‐Crop Corn Systems

Andrew H. Heggenstaller; Matt Liebman; Robert P. Anex

9
claims
19
verbatim quotes
41
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Increased biomass productivity could be achieved through double‐cropping if extended growth duration could be realized with minimal reductions in growth efficiency relative to sole‐cropping. To test this hypothesis, functional growth analysis was used to assess the relative importance of photosynthetic duration and efficiency in determining biomass production by sole‐crop corn ( Zea mays L.; SC) and double‐crop triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack)–double‐crop corn (DT–DC). Aboveground dry matter and leaf area were measured weekly, and net dry matter production was assessed for each crop at harvest. Over 2 yr, average harvested dry matter was 25% greater for DT–DC (22.7 Mg ha −1 ) than for SC (18.2 Mg ha −1 ), despite greater maximum leaf area index and greater maximum crop growth rate for SC relative to DT–DC. Leaf area duration was increased by 23% for DT–DC compared with SC, while maximum net assimilation rate and seasonal net assimilation rate did not differ between cropping systems. Across systems, variation in yield was positively related to maximum crop growth rate, maximum leaf area index, and leaf area duration but was not associated with maximum or seasonal net‐assimilation rate. Therefore, leaf duration was more important than leaf efficiency in determining productivity in both cropping systems, and greater biomass yield for DT–DC was the outcome of photosynthesis occurring over an extended duration. These results suggest that potential exists to increase biomass productivity by expanding the seasonal interval of photosynthesis, and that in the case of double‐cropping, expansion of leaf duration is not necessarily associated with reductions in leaf efficiency.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Double cropping produced 25% more harvested dry matter than sole-crop corn.

Treatment
DT–DCe0
Outcome
average harvested dry mattere0
Direction
greatere0
Value
25%e0
Qualifier
18.2 Mg ha −1e0
Comparator
SCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Over 2 yr, average harvested dry matter was 25% greater for DT–DC (22.7 Mg ha −1 ) than for SC (18.2 Mg ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 615–726 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole cropping had greater maximum leaf area index than double cropping.

Treatment
SCe0
Outcome
maximum leaf area indexe0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
DT–DCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“despite greater maximum leaf area index and greater maximum crop growth rate for SC relative to DT–DC.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 728–830 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole cropping had greater maximum crop growth rate than double cropping.

Treatment
SCe0
Outcome
maximum crop growth ratee0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
DT–DCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“despite greater maximum leaf area index and greater maximum crop growth rate for SC relative to DT–DC.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 728–830 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Double cropping increased leaf area duration by 23% over sole cropping.

Treatment
DT–DCe0
Outcome
Leaf area duratione0
Direction
increasede0
Value
23%e0
Comparator
SCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Leaf area duration was increased by 23% for DT–DC compared with SC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 831–897 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maximum and seasonal net assimilation rates did not differ between cropping systems.

Treatment
cropping systemse0
Outcome
maximum net assimilation rate and seasonal net assimilation ratee0
Direction
did not differe0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while maximum net assimilation rate and seasonal net assimilation rate did not differ between cropping systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 899–1010 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield was positively related to maximum crop growth rate, leaf area index and leaf area duration.

Outcome
variation in yielde0
Direction
positively relatede0
Qualifier
maximum crop growth rate, maximum leaf area index, and leaf area duratione0
Setting
systemse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Across systems, variation in yield was positively related to maximum crop growth rate, maximum leaf area index, and leaf area duration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1145 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield was not associated with maximum or seasonal net-assimilation rate.

Outcome
yieldt1
Direction
not associatede0
Qualifier
maximum or seasonal net‐assimilation ratee0
Setting
systemst1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but was not associated with maximum or seasonal net‐assimilation rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1146–1216 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
t1

“Across systems, variation in yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1045 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attribute higher double-crop biomass yield to longer photosynthesis duration.

Outcome
greater biomass yielde0
Qualifier
photosynthesis occurring over an extended duratione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“greater biomass yield for DT–DC was the outcome of photosynthesis occurring over an extended duration.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1442 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest increasing productivity by extending seasonal photosynthesis.

Outcome
increase biomass productivity by expanding the seasonal interval of photosynthesise0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“These results suggest that potential exists to increase biomass productivity by expanding the seasonal interval of photosynthesis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1443–1572 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–71 · show in text ↑

cultivation system · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 15 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 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.