Abstract
Soil flooding is one of the major abiotic stresses that repress maize ( Zea mays L.) growth and yield, and other environmental factors often influence soil flooding stress. This paper reports an experimental test of the hypothesis that light intensity can influence the responses of maize seedlings to soil flooding. In this experiment, maize seedlings were subjected to soil flooding at the two-leaf stage under control light (600 µmol m -2 s -1 ) or low light (150 µmol m -2 s -1 ) conditions. Under control light growth conditions, the average photosynthetic rate (PN), transpiration rate (E) and water use efficiency (WUE) were 70, 26 and 59%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings; and the average chlorophyll a (Chl a), chlorophyll b (Chl b) and Chl a+b were 31, 42 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings; and the average belowground biomass and total biomass were 52 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings. There was a slight decrease of seedling biomass in six days flooded seedlings under low light growth conditions. The effects of flooding on photosynthetic, seedling growth and shoot/root ratio were more pronounced under control light growth conditions than under low light growth conditions, which indicate that even for maize which is a C4 plant, relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Under control light, photosynthetic rate was 70% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
- Treatment
- soil floodinge5
- Outcome
- average photosynthetic rate (PN)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 70e0
- Qualifier
- Under control light growth conditionse0
- Comparator
- non-floodede0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e0“Under control light growth conditions, the average photosynthetic rate (PN), transpiration rate (E) and water use efficiency (WUE) were 70, 26 and 59%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Under control light, transpiration rate was 26% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
- Treatment
- soil floodinge5
- Outcome
- transpiration rate (E)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 26e0
- Qualifier
- Under control light growth conditionse0
- Comparator
- non-floodede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e0“Under control light growth conditions, the average photosynthetic rate (PN), transpiration rate (E) and water use efficiency (WUE) were 70, 26 and 59%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Under control light, water use efficiency was 59% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
- Treatment
- soil floodinge5
- Outcome
- water use efficiency (WUE)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 59e0
- Qualifier
- Under control light growth conditionse0
- Comparator
- non-floodede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e0“Under control light growth conditions, the average photosynthetic rate (PN), transpiration rate (E) and water use efficiency (WUE) were 70, 26 and 59%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Average chlorophyll a was 31% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
- Treatment
- soil floodinge5
- Outcome
- average chlorophyll a (Chl a)e1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 31e1
- Comparator
- non-floodede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e1“the average chlorophyll a (Chl a), chlorophyll b (Chl b) and Chl a+b were 31, 42 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Average chlorophyll b was 42% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
- Treatment
- soil floodinge5
- Outcome
- chlorophyll b (Chl b)e1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 42e1
- Comparator
- non-floodede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e1“the average chlorophyll a (Chl a), chlorophyll b (Chl b) and Chl a+b were 31, 42 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Total chlorophyll a+b was 34% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e1“the average chlorophyll a (Chl a), chlorophyll b (Chl b) and Chl a+b were 31, 42 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Average belowground biomass was 52% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
- Treatment
- soil floodinge5
- Outcome
- average belowground biomasse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 52e2
- Comparator
- non-floodede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e2“the average belowground biomass and total biomass were 52 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Total biomass was 34% higher in non-flooded than in flooded maize seedlings.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e2“the average belowground biomass and total biomass were 52 and 34%, respectively, higher in non-flooded than in flooded seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Seedling biomass decreased slightly in maize seedlings flooded for six days under low light.
- Treatment
- six days flooded seedlingse3
- Outcome
- seedling biomasse3
- Direction
- decreasee3
- Qualifier
- under low light growth conditionse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e3“There was a slight decrease of seedling biomass in six days flooded seedlings under low light growth conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Effects of flooding on photosynthesis, seedling growth and shoot/root ratio are more pronounced under control light than under low light.
- Treatment
- floodinge4
- Outcome
- effects of flooding on photosynthetic, seedling growth and shoot/root ratioe4
- Direction
- more pronouncede4
- Qualifier
- under control light growth conditionse4
- Comparator
- low light growth conditionse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e4“The effects of flooding on photosynthetic, seedling growth and shoot/root ratio were more pronounced under control light growth conditions than under low light growth conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Relatively high light intensity aggravates soil flooding stress in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light growth condition mitigates soil flooding stress in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Zea mays L. seedlings”
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
Claim · model-written summary
Light effects should be considered when studying maize responses to soil flooding.
- Outcome
- light effectse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“relatively high light intensity still aggravated soil flooding stress, while low light growth condition mitigated soil flooding stress, and suggests that light effects should be considered when we study maize responses to soil flooding”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →flooding · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
55 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →flooding · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →flooding · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →flooding · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 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.