Abstract
Maize ( Zea mays L.) kernel set can be improved through synchronous pollination within and between ears. Reductions in kernel set could be expected because of asynchronous pollination between early‐ and late‐appearing silks. We analyzed the effect of (i) selective ear heating around the time of silking, and (ii) different time gaps between early‐ and late‐pollinated silks in an attempt to modify kernel set. Tip ear heating was expected to minimize the advantage of early silking ovaries. Lateral heating and pollination gaps were expected to exaggerate this advantage. Three pollination gaps (2, 4, and 6 d) were tested for two plant populations (3 and 9 plants m −2 ). Ear temperature in the heated zone averaged 4.5°C above air temperature. Temperature in the nonheated side closely followed air temperature. Treatments promoted greater differences in maize kernel number (KN) per ear (73% variation) than in the number of silks exposed 5 d after silking (6% variation). Lateral ear heating reduced KN per ear in comparison with the nonheated control, but tip ear heating did not modify KN per ear. At 9 plants m −2 , synchronous pollination resulted in ∼15% increase in KN per plant. Pollination gaps of 2 and 4 d reduced KN per plant drastically (up to 51%), but the reduction was smaller for the 6‐d gap. This study (i) gives evidence of the negative impact of delayed pollination timing among silks on kernel set, which was not related to reduced silk receptivity, and (ii) defines the time gap for maximum interference of early‐ on late‐pollinated ovaries, a period shorter than 4 d.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments caused greater variation in kernel number per ear than in silks exposed.
- Outcome
- maize kernel number (KN) per eare0
- Direction
- greater differencese0
- Value
- 73% variatione0
- Qualifier
- 6% variatione0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatments promoted greater differences in maize kernel number (KN) per ear (73% variation) than in the number of silks exposed 5 d after silking (6% variation).”
Claim · model-written summary
Lateral ear heating reduced kernel number per ear versus nonheated control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lateral ear heating reduced KN per ear in comparison with the nonheated control, but tip ear heating did not modify KN per ear.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tip ear heating did not modify kernel number per ear.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lateral ear heating reduced KN per ear in comparison with the nonheated control, but tip ear heating did not modify KN per ear.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 9 plants per square meter, synchronous pollination increased kernel number per plant by approximately 15%.
- Treatment
- synchronous pollinatione0
- Outcome
- KN per plante0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- ∼15%e0
- Qualifier
- 9 plants m −2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 9 plants m −2 , synchronous pollination resulted in ∼15% increase in KN per plant.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A 2-day pollination gap reduced kernel number per plant.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pollination gaps of 2 and 4 d reduced KN per plant drastically (up to 51%), but the reduction was smaller for the 6‐d gap.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A 4-day pollination gap reduced kernel number per plant.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pollination gaps of 2 and 4 d reduced KN per plant drastically (up to 51%), but the reduction was smaller for the 6‐d gap.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The reduction in kernel number was smaller for the 6-day gap.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pollination gaps of 2 and 4 d reduced KN per plant drastically (up to 51%), but the reduction was smaller for the 6‐d gap.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed pollination negatively affected kernel set, without a relation to reduced silk receptivity.
- Treatment
- delayed pollination timing among silkse0
- Outcome
- kernel sete0
- Direction
- negative impacte0
- Qualifier
- not related to reduced silk receptivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study (i) gives evidence of the negative impact of delayed pollination timing among silks on kernel set, which was not related to reduced silk receptivity, and (ii) defines the time gap for maximum interference of early‐ on late‐pollinated ovaries, a period shorter than 4 d.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum interference of early on late pollinated ovaries occurs at a gap shorter than four days.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“defines the time gap for maximum interference of early‐ on late‐pollinated ovaries, a period shorter than 4 d.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
pollination · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →heat · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
81 papers more in this group
See all 85 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.