Abstract
Grain filling duration and dry matter accumulation rate are associated with maize ( Zea mays L.) yield potential and might be used for indirect yield selection. Additional physiological and genetic information, however, are needed to verify selection procedures and potential gains. Phenotypic recurrent selection was used to develop subpopulations for the physiological components of kernel growth: long EFPD (effective filling period duration), short EFPD, high DMAR (dry matter accumulation rate), and low DMAR. Our objectives were to measure selection progress for these yield components and to observe correlated responses. The original population (CO) and synthetics from three selection cycles (C1‐C3) were evaluated for physiological traits at one location and for agronomic traits at three locations in lattice designs. Regressions and realized heritabilities were calculated. Changes per cycle for the long and short EFPD subpopulations were +4.1 and −3.1% with heritabilities of 0.19 and 0.15, respectively. High and low DMAR selection caused changes per cycle of +4.8 and −8.0% with heritabilities of 0.20 and 0.44, respectively. Concurrent half‐sib yield selection lengthened EFPD. Long EFPD C3 yield was not different and high DMAR C3 was 13% greater than CO. Stalk lodging, harvest moisture, and plant height were affected. Kernel number per plant was influenced by DMAR but not EFPD. Although kernel wt. and number were influenced by DMAR and kernel wt. by EFPD, yield per unit area was changed only by the DMAR and half‐sib selections. Failure of the long EFPD selection, which also reduced DMAR, to increase yield per unit area was due to marginally reduced kernel size and number. Selection for long EFPD and high DMAR is possible, but improvement of yield may be dependent on concurrent control of other yield components.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Selection for long EFPD increased EFPD 4.1% per cycle, with realized heritability 0.19.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes per cycle for the long and short EFPD subpopulations were +4.1 and −3.1% with heritabilities of 0.19 and 0.15, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Selection for short EFPD decreased EFPD 3.1% per cycle, with heritability 0.15.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes per cycle for the long and short EFPD subpopulations were +4.1 and −3.1% with heritabilities of 0.19 and 0.15, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
High DMAR selection increased DMAR 4.8% per cycle, with heritability 0.20.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High and low DMAR selection caused changes per cycle of +4.8 and −8.0% with heritabilities of 0.20 and 0.44, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Low DMAR selection decreased DMAR 8.0% per cycle, with heritability 0.44.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High and low DMAR selection caused changes per cycle of +4.8 and −8.0% with heritabilities of 0.20 and 0.44, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Concurrent half-sib yield selection lengthened EFPD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Concurrent half‐sib yield selection lengthened EFPD.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Long EFPD C3 yield did not differ from the original population.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Long EFPD C3 yield was not different and high DMAR C3 was 13% greater than CO.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
High DMAR C3 yield was 13% above CO.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Long EFPD C3 yield was not different and high DMAR C3 was 13% greater than CO.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Selection affected stalk lodging, harvest moisture and plant height.
- Outcome
- Stalk lodging, harvest moisture, and plant heighte0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stalk lodging, harvest moisture, and plant height were affected.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DMAR influenced kernel number per plant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Kernel number per plant was influenced by DMAR but not EFPD.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
EFPD did not influence kernel number per plant.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Kernel number per plant was influenced by DMAR but not EFPD.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DMAR influenced kernel weight.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although kernel wt. and number were influenced by DMAR and kernel wt. by EFPD, yield per unit area was changed only by the DMAR and half‐sib selections.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
EFPD influenced kernel weight.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although kernel wt. and number were influenced by DMAR and kernel wt. by EFPD, yield per unit area was changed only by the DMAR and half‐sib selections.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DMAR and half-sib selections changed yield per unit area.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield per unit area was changed only by the DMAR and half‐sib selections.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Long EFPD selection reduced DMAR and marginally reduced kernel size and number, failing to raise area yield.
- Treatment
- long EFPD selectione0
- Outcome
- yield per unit areae0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- marginally reduced kernel size and numbere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Failure of the long EFPD selection, which also reduced DMAR, to increase yield per unit area was due to marginally reduced kernel size and number.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield improvement from long EFPD and high DMAR selection may require control of other yield components.
- Outcome
- concurrent control of other yield componentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Selection for long EFPD and high DMAR is possible, but improvement of yield may be dependent on concurrent control of other yield components.”
t0“Maize”