Abstract
The influence of genotype and panicle position on sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] kernel growth is poorly understood. In the present study, sorghum kernel weight (KW) differences during grain filling were analyzed by kernel water relationships previously described in other crops. Eight commercial genotypes differing in KW were used, and KW, water content, kernel volume, kernel moisture content, and kernel density were measured in two positions within the panicle (apical and basal) throughout the grain‐filling period. At physiological maturity (PM), KW ranged from 16.5 to 25.1 mg kernel −1 , and a significant ( p < 0.05) genotype × position interaction was detected. Independently of final KW, apical kernels always exhibited a higher rate ( p < 0.001) and a shorter duration of grain filling ( p < 0.001) than basal kernels. Maximum water content was related to kernel growth rate but not to final KW. Basal kernels reached maximum kernel volume after attaining maximum water content, with dry matter accumulation affecting kernel volume determination. Kernel density increased with a similar pattern regardless of genotype or panicle position when related to the kernel moisture decline, but at PM, basal kernels were always more dense than apical ones. Differences in the kernel desiccation pattern and in the critical moisture content for biomass accumulation helped explain differences in the grain‐filling duration between positions. A general kernel growth curve based on kernel moisture content was impossible to obtain because of the differences in kernel growth patterns within the panicle.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity kernel weight ranged from 16.5 to 25.1 mg per kernel.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At physiological maturity (PM), KW ranged from 16.5 to 25.1 mg kernel −1”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel weight showed a significant genotype by position interaction.
- Outcome
- genotype × position interactione0
Not reportedOrgan / stageDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a significant ( p < 0.05) genotype × position interaction was detected”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Apical kernels had a higher filling rate than basal kernels.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apical kernels always exhibited a higher rate ( p < 0.001) and a shorter duration of grain filling ( p < 0.001) than basal kernels”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Apical kernels had a shorter grain filling duration than basal kernels.
- Organ / stage
- apical kernelse0
- Outcome
- duration of grain fillinge0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Comparator
- basal kernelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apical kernels always exhibited a higher rate ( p < 0.001) and a shorter duration of grain filling ( p < 0.001) than basal kernels”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum water content was related to kernel growth rate.
Not reportedCompoundDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum water content was related to kernel growth rate but not to final KW”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum water content was not related to final kernel weight.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum water content was related to kernel growth rate but not to final KW”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal kernels reached maximum volume after maximum water content.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Basal kernels reached maximum kernel volume after attaining maximum water content”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter accumulation affected kernel volume.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dry matter accumulation affecting kernel volume determination”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel density increased similarly across genotype and position during moisture decline.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Kernel density increased with a similar pattern regardless of genotype or panicle position when related to the kernel moisture decline”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal kernels were denser than apical kernels at maturity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at PM, basal kernels were always more dense than apical ones”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Desiccation pattern and critical moisture differences helped explain position differences in filling duration.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in the kernel desiccation pattern and in the critical moisture content for biomass accumulation helped explain differences in the grain‐filling duration between positions”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
A single kernel growth curve based on moisture content could not represent panicle positions.
- Outcome
- general kernel growth curvee0
- Comparator
- differences in kernel growth patterns within the paniclee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A general kernel growth curve based on kernel moisture content was impossible to obtain because of the differences in kernel growth patterns within the panicle”
t0“Sorghum”