Abstract
Relative effects of temperature during endosperm cell division (lag phase) and the effective grain‐fill period (EGFP) thephysiology of kernel development and final kernel mass in maize ( Zea mays L.) were studied in vitro. Kernels were cultured at 15, 30, and 35°C during most of the lag phase. Before the start of the EGFP some kernels were transferred to each of the other temperature regimes while others remained at the original temperatures. When 30°C was maintained through the lag phase and EGFP, kernel mass was 77% of that observed for kernels from field‐grown ears. Temperature extremes (15 or 35°C) during either period of kernel development reduced final kernel mass, however, an unfavorable thermal environment during the lag phase caused the most reduction. Detrimental effects sustained in the lag phase prevailed when kernels were transferred to a more conducive (30°C) thermal environment during EGFP. Regardless of temperature during the EGFP, final kernel mass was 3 to 10 times higher when the lag phase temperature was 30°C. The data also showed that duration of EGFP was mediated primarily by prevailing temperature during EGFP while kernel growth rate during the EGFP was mediated in part by thermal history during the lag phase. High levels of soluble sugars were found in the endosperm during both stages of kernel development under adverse thermal environments (15 or 35°C). This suggested that low substrate level was not the cause of the reduced kernel growth rate and lower kernel weight observed at these temperatures. High temperature during the lag phase appeared to have the greatest negative effect on endosperm starch deposition during EGFP even when a favorable EGFP temperature (30°C) was provided. These data show that temperature extremes during the lag phase may mediate final kernel size by reducing endosperm sink capacity established during the lag phase or by reducing starch deposition in endosperm cells during the subsequent EGFP.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
At 30°C throughout both phases, kernel mass was 77% of field-grown ear kernels.
- Organ / stage
- kernele0
- Treatment
- 30°Ce0
- Outcome
- kernel masse0
- Value
- 77%e0
- Comparator
- kernels from field‐grown earse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When 30°C was maintained through the lag phase and EGFP, kernel mass was 77% of that observed for kernels from field‐grown ears”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Temperature extremes in either development period reduced final kernel mass.
- Organ / stage
- kernele0
- Treatment
- Temperature extremes (15 or 35°C)e0
- Outcome
- final kernel masse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Temperature extremes (15 or 35°C) during either period of kernel development reduced final kernel mass”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
An unfavorable lag-phase thermal environment caused the greatest reduction in final kernel mass.
- Treatment
- an unfavorable thermal environment during the lag phasee0
- Outcome
- most reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an unfavorable thermal environment during the lag phase caused the most reduction”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Lag-phase damage persisted after transfer to 30°C during grain fill.
- Organ / stage
- kernelse0
- Treatment
- 30°Ce0
- Outcome
- Detrimental effects sustained in the lag phase prevailede0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Detrimental effects sustained in the lag phase prevailed when kernels were transferred to a more conducive (30°C) thermal environment during EGFP”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A 30°C lag phase yielded final kernel mass 3 to 10 times higher regardless of grain-fill temperature.
- Treatment
- lag phase temperature was 30°Ce0
- Outcome
- final kernel masse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3 to 10 timese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of temperature during the EGFP, final kernel mass was 3 to 10 times higher when the lag phase temperature was 30°C”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain-fill duration was mediated primarily by prevailing grain-fill temperature.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“duration of EGFP was mediated primarily by prevailing temperature during EGFP”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel growth rate during grain fill was partly mediated by lag-phase thermal history.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“kernel growth rate during the EGFP was mediated in part by thermal history during the lag phase”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Endosperm soluble sugars were high under adverse thermal conditions in both stages.
- Organ / stage
- endosperme0
- Treatment
- adverse thermal environments (15 or 35°C)e0
- Outcome
- High levels of soluble sugarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High levels of soluble sugars were found in the endosperm during both stages of kernel development under adverse thermal environments (15 or 35°C)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Low substrate level was not considered the cause of reduced kernel growth and weight at temperature extremes.
- Outcome
- reduced kernel growth rate and lower kernel weighte0
- Qualifier
- low substrate level was not the causee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“low substrate level was not the cause of the reduced kernel growth rate and lower kernel weight observed at these temperatures”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
High lag-phase temperature appeared to have the greatest negative effect on later endosperm starch deposition, even at 30°C grain fill.
- Treatment
- High temperature during the lag phasee0
- Outcome
- endosperm starch depositione0
- Direction
- negative effecte0
- Qualifier
- even when a favorable EGFP temperature (30°C) was providede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High temperature during the lag phase appeared to have the greatest negative effect on endosperm starch deposition during EGFP even when a favorable EGFP temperature (30°C) was provided”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Temperature extremes during lag phase may reduce final kernel size through diminished endosperm sink capacity or later starch deposition.
- Treatment
- temperature extremes during the lag phasee0
- Outcome
- final kernel sizee0
- Qualifier
- reducing endosperm sink capacity established during the lag phase or by reducing starch deposition in endosperm cells during the subsequent EGFPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“temperature extremes during the lag phase may mediate final kernel size by reducing endosperm sink capacity established during the lag phase or by reducing starch deposition in endosperm cells during the subsequent EGFP”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
heat · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.