Abstract
SUMMARY Maize was grown in two densities, 2–47 or 4–94 plants m ‐2 , and the following treatments imposed: untreated, plants partly defoliated 51 days after sowing, and alternate plants in a row partly defoliated 44 days after sowing. Plants flowered about 82 days after sowing. Leaf area was decreased by 60–64% by defoliation on day 51. Defoliation resulted in decreases in grain yield and grain number of 6–17%, though when alternate plants were defoliated in the higher density there was a substantial decrease in yield and number of grains in defoliated plants, which was largely offset by an increase in adjacent intact plants. When plants were defoliated on day 51 subsequent growth in leaf area was similar to, and that in leaf weight nearly as large as that in untreated plants, while increase in stem weight was substantially less than in untreated plants. By the time of flowering untreated and defoliated plots differed by c. 30% in leaf area. Increments of dry matter after flowering differed by c. 15% between untreated and defoliated plots. The fraction of these increments which entered the grain was c. 90% in both untreated and defoliated plots. When alternate plants in the row were partly defoliated on day 44 their subsequent increase in leaf area was probably 5–16% less than that of the adjacent intact plants. Increments of dry matter after flowering of plots with alternate plants defoliated were 93–95 % of those of untreated plots; leaf efficiency after flowering was slightly greater than in untreated plots. The fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the grain was c. 88 % in both intact and defoliated plants of the small density, but was 94% in intact plants and 86% in defoliated plants of the large density.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation decreased grain yield and grain number by 6–17%.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e3“Defoliation resulted in decreases in grain yield and grain number of 6–17%”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation on day 51 decreased leaf area by 60–64%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e4“Leaf area was decreased by 60–64% by defoliation on day 51”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsequent growth in leaf area after defoliation on day 51 was similar to that of untreated plants.
- Treatment
- defoliated on day 51e6
- Outcome
- subsequent growth in leaf areae6
- Direction
- similar toe6
- Comparator
- untreated plantse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e6“When plants were defoliated on day 51 subsequent growth in leaf area was similar to, and that in leaf weight nearly as large as that in untreated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf weight after defoliation on day 51 was nearly as large as in untreated plants.
- Treatment
- defoliated on day 51e6
- Outcome
- leaf weighte6
- Direction
- nearly as large ase6
- Comparator
- untreated plantse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e6“When plants were defoliated on day 51 subsequent growth in leaf area was similar to, and that in leaf weight nearly as large as that in untreated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Increase in stem weight after defoliation was substantially less than in untreated plants.
- Treatment
- defoliated on day 51e6
- Outcome
- increase in stem weighte7
- Direction
- substantially lesse7
- Comparator
- untreated plantse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e6“When plants were defoliated on day 51 subsequent growth in leaf area was similar to, and that in leaf weight nearly as large as that in untreated plants”
e7“while increase in stem weight was substantially less than in untreated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated and defoliated plots differed by c. 30% in leaf area at flowering.
- Treatment
- defoliatede5
- Outcome
- leaf areae5
- Direction
- differede5
- Value
- c. 30%e5
- Qualifier
- By the time of floweringe5
- Comparator
- untreatede5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e5“By the time of flowering untreated and defoliated plots differed by c. 30% in leaf area”
Claim · model-written summary
Increments of dry matter after flowering differed by c. 15% between untreated and defoliated plots.
- Treatment
- defoliatede1
- Outcome
- Increments of dry matter after floweringe1
- Direction
- differede1
- Value
- c. 15%e1
- Comparator
- untreatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“Increments of dry matter after flowering differed by c. 15% between untreated and defoliated plots”
Claim · model-written summary
The fraction of increments entering the grain was c. 90% in both untreated and defoliated plots.
- Outcome
- fraction of these increments which entered the graine1
- Value
- c. 90%e1
- Qualifier
- in both untreated and defoliated plotse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“The fraction of these increments which entered the grain was c. 90% in both untreated and defoliated plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter increments after flowering with alternate plants defoliated were 93–95 % of those of untreated plots.
- Treatment
- alternate plants defoliatede1
- Outcome
- Increments of dry matter after floweringe1
- Direction
- were 93–95 % of thosee1
- Value
- 93–95 %e1
- Comparator
- untreated plotse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“Increments of dry matter after flowering of plots with alternate plants defoliated were 93–95 % of those of untreated plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf efficiency after flowering was slightly greater in alternate-defoliated plots than in untreated plots.
- Treatment
- alternate plants defoliatede1
- Outcome
- leaf efficiency after floweringe2
- Direction
- slightly greatere2
- Comparator
- untreated plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“Increments of dry matter after flowering of plots with alternate plants defoliated were 93–95 % of those of untreated plots”
e2“leaf efficiency after flowering was slightly greater than in untreated plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternate plants partly defoliated on day 44 had a subsequent leaf area increase probably 5–16% less than adjacent intact plants.
- Treatment
- partly defoliated on day 44e1
- Outcome
- subsequent increase in leaf areae1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 5–16%e1
- Qualifier
- probablye1
- Comparator
- adjacent intact plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“When alternate plants in the row were partly defoliated on day 44 their subsequent increase in leaf area was probably 5–16% less than that of the adjacent intact plants”
Claim · model-written summary
At the higher density, defoliating alternate plants decreased yield and grain number.
- Treatment
- alternate plants were defoliated in the higher densitye1
- Outcome
- yield and number of grainse1
- Direction
- decreasee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“though when alternate plants were defoliated in the higher density there was a substantial decrease in yield and number of grains in defoliated plants, which was largely offset by an increase in adjacent intact plants”
Claim · model-written summary
An increase in adjacent intact plants largely offset the yield and grain number loss at the higher density.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“though when alternate plants were defoliated in the higher density there was a substantial decrease in yield and number of grains in defoliated plants, which was largely offset by an increase in adjacent intact plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The fraction of the dry matter increment entering the grain was c. 88 % at the small density.
- Outcome
- fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the graine1
- Value
- c. 88 %e1
- Qualifier
- small densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“The fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the grain was c. 88 % in both intact and defoliated plants of the small density, but was 94% in intact plants and 86% in defoliated plants of the large density”
Claim · model-written summary
At the large density the fraction entering the grain was 94% in intact plants.
- Outcome
- fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the graine1
- Value
- 94%e1
- Qualifier
- large densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“The fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the grain was c. 88 % in both intact and defoliated plants of the small density, but was 94% in intact plants and 86% in defoliated plants of the large density”
Claim · model-written summary
At the large density the fraction entering the grain was 86% in defoliated plants.
- Treatment
- defoliated plantse1
- Outcome
- fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the graine1
- Value
- 86%e1
- Qualifier
- large densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e1“The fraction of the dry matter increment after flowering which entered the grain was c. 88 % in both intact and defoliated plants of the small density, but was 94% in intact plants and 86% in defoliated plants of the large density”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize plants flowered about 82 days after sowing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize was grown in two densities”
e2“Plants flowered about 82 days after sowing”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →pruning · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 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.