Abstract
In this paper,the data of maize experiment on regulated deficit irrigation were analyzed and the following results were achieved.The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced the stem length by 35.7%,29.9%,22.7%,14.2%,the leaf area by 43.4%,34.7%,31.4%,26.3%, the root number by 40.0%,31.2%,18.7%,12.5%,root length by 11.0%,10.0%,2.0%,1.0%, the root weight by 32.0%,19.0%,5.0%,-1.4%,respectively,and increased the root/shoot ratio by 29.3%,39.9%,33.6,36.5%,the ratio of root length/stem length by 38.4%,28.4%,26.8%,15.4%,respectively.Compared with those during seedling,water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stage increased relatively the stem length by 6.8%-19.8%,leaf areas by 5.5%-18.5%,dry matter weight by 25.8%-2.5%,suggesting that compensatory growth occurred after rewatering.With the enhancement of water deficit,the compensatory effect became more obvious.Moreover,physiological attributes showed some water deficit could enhance the drought resistance of maize and water use efficiency,and improve seed quality as well.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Serious, secondary, medium and less seedling water deficits reduced stem length by 35.7%, 29.9%, 22.7% and 14.2%, respectively.
- Organ / stage
- seedling stagee0
- Treatment
- serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficite0
- Outcome
- stem lengthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 35.7%,29.9%,22.7%,14.2%e0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment results grouped because full splitting exceeds the claim budget.
Verbatim
e0“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced the stem length by 35.7%,29.9%,22.7%,14.2%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The four deficit levels reduced leaf area by 43.4%, 34.7%, 31.4% and 26.3%, respectively.
- Treatment
- serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficite0
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 43.4%,34.7%,31.4%,26.3%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment results grouped to retain coverage within budget.
Verbatim
e0“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced the stem length by 35.7%,29.9%,22.7%,14.2%,the leaf area by 43.4%,34.7%,31.4%,26.3%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The four deficit levels reduced root number by 40.0%, 31.2%, 18.7% and 12.5%, respectively.
- Treatment
- serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficite0
- Outcome
- root numbere0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 40.0%,31.2%,18.7%,12.5%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment results grouped to retain coverage within budget.
Verbatim
e0“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced the stem length by 35.7%,29.9%,22.7%,14.2%,the leaf area by 43.4%,34.7%,31.4%,26.3%, the root number by 40.0%,31.2%,18.7%,12.5%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The four deficit levels reduced root length by 11.0%, 10.0%, 2.0% and 1.0%, respectively.
- Treatment
- serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficite1
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 11.0%,10.0%,2.0%,1.0%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment results grouped to retain coverage within budget.
Verbatim
e0“root length by 11.0%,10.0%,2.0%,1.0%”
e1“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Serious seedling water deficit reduced root weight by 32.0%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the root weight by 32.0%,19.0%,5.0%,-1.4%,respectively”
e1“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Secondary seedling water deficit reduced root weight by 19.0%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the root weight by 32.0%,19.0%,5.0%,-1.4%,respectively”
e1“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium seedling water deficit reduced root weight by 5.0%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the root weight by 32.0%,19.0%,5.0%,-1.4%,respectively”
e1“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Less seedling water deficit produced a reported root-weight reduction of -1.4%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the root weight by 32.0%,19.0%,5.0%,-1.4%,respectively”
e1“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage reduced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The four deficit levels increased root/shoot ratio by 29.3%, 39.9%, 33.6 and 36.5%, respectively.
- Treatment
- serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficite1
- Outcome
- root/shoot ratioe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 29.3%,39.9%,33.6,36.5%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment results grouped to retain coverage within budget; one percentage unit is absent in source.
Verbatim
e0“increased the root/shoot ratio by 29.3%,39.9%,33.6,36.5%”
e1“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The four deficit levels increased root-length/stem-length ratio by 38.4%, 28.4%, 26.8% and 15.4%, respectively.
- Treatment
- serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficite2
- Outcome
- ratio of root length/stem lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 38.4%,28.4%,26.8%,15.4%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Treatment results grouped to retain coverage within budget.
Verbatim
e0“the ratio of root length/stem length by 38.4%,28.4%,26.8%,15.4%,respectively”
e1“and increased the root/shoot ratio”
e2“The serious water deficit,secondary water deficit,medium water deficit and less water deficit during seedling stage”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rewatering at jointing after seedling deficit increased stem length by 6.8%-19.8% relative to seedling-stage values.
- Treatment
- water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stagee0
- Outcome
- stem lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.8%-19.8%e0
- Comparator
- those during seedlinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with those during seedling,water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stage increased relatively the stem length by 6.8%-19.8%,leaf areas by 5.5%-18.5%,dry matter weight by 25.8%-2.5%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rewatering at jointing after seedling deficit increased leaf areas by 5.5%-18.5% relative to seedling-stage values.
- Treatment
- water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stagee0
- Outcome
- leaf arease0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.5%-18.5%e0
- Comparator
- those during seedlinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with those during seedling,water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stage increased relatively the stem length by 6.8%-19.8%,leaf areas by 5.5%-18.5%,dry matter weight by 25.8%-2.5%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rewatering at jointing after seedling deficit increased dry matter weight by the reported range 25.8%-2.5%.
- Treatment
- water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stagee0
- Outcome
- dry matter weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25.8%-2.5%e0
- Comparator
- those during seedlinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with those during seedling,water deficit at seedling stage and rewatering at jointing stage increased relatively the stem length by 6.8%-19.8%,leaf areas by 5.5%-18.5%,dry matter weight by 25.8%-2.5%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The compensatory effect became more obvious with greater water deficit.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With the enhancement of water deficit,the compensatory effect became more obvious.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Some water deficit could enhance maize drought resistance and water-use efficiency.
- Treatment
- some water deficite0
- Outcome
- drought resistance of maize and water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- enhancee0
- Qualifier
- coulde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“physiological attributes showed some water deficit could enhance the drought resistance of maize and water use efficiency,and improve seed quality as well.”
Claim · model-written summary
Some water deficit could improve maize seed quality.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“physiological attributes showed some water deficit could enhance the drought resistance of maize and water use efficiency,and improve seed quality as well.”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →in vitro · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
83 papers more in this group
See all 87 papers →drought · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 116 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
151 papers more in this group
See all 155 papers →drought · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
76 papers in the same direction as this paper · 306 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
381 papers more in this group
See all 385 papers →rewatering · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
12 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.