Abstract
Prolonged rainy weather during the maize growing season can lead to insufficient light,and thus dramatically lower yields.Maize,Zea mays L.,is one of the most important food crops in China,and around the world,and a high and stable yield is necessary to guarantee food safety.Previous studies into the effects of low light stress on maize have predominantly focused on aboveground biomass,leaf area,chlorophyll content,net photosynthetic rate,root activity,soluble protein content,grain yield,nutrient levels,and the activity of some enzymes,including superoxide dismutase(SOD),peroxidase(POD),catalase(CAT),sucrose-phosphate synthase(SPS),sucrose synthase(SS),soluble starch synthase(SSS),granule-bound-starch synthase(GBSS),adenosine diphosphate glucose pyrophorylase(ADPGPPase),and uridine diphosphate glucose pyrophorylase(UDPGPPase).However,the potentially damaging effects of low light stress on the anatomical structure of maize photosynthetic systems have seldom been mentioned in the literature,and the relationships between anatomical structure and photosynthetic characteristics remain unclear.Our objective was to determine the effects of low light stress on the anatomical structure of maize photosynthetic systems,and the relationship between photosynthetic characteristics and anatomical structure,in different maize cultivars at the seedling stage. We experimented on the seedling leaves of two maize cultivars: the shade-tolerant cultivar Zhengdan 958(ZD958) and the shade-sensitive cultivar Yuyu 22(YY22).These were grown in experimental pots in the field.50% shade treatment was used,with non-shaded seedlings as controls.Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited;leaves became thinner,numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased,number of grana increased,grana thickness increased,and the thickness of the grana lamellae increased.In the shade-sensitive cultivar YY22,most of the chloroplasts became dysplastic,the stroma lamellae swelled and the grana lamellae became loose.In contrast,in the shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 the chloroplasts were almost normal with some healthy parts.The net photosynthetic rate(Pn),photochemical efficiency(Fv/Fm),and actual photochemical efficiency(ΦPSⅡ) all decreased under shade.Chlorophyll content,intercellular CO2 concentration(Ci) and non-photochemical quenching(NPQ) increased;however these were all reversible.The values of all variables investigated were significantly higher or lower in the shade-sensitive cultivar YY22 than in the corresponding control.Shading had no significant influence on the shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 except for Pn and Ci.We speculate,therefore,that low light stress has different significant effects on the anatomy and photosynthesis of maize with different genotypes.The shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 maintains more normal anatomical structure and higher photosynthetic function than the shade-sensitive YY22 under low light stress;these are the major anatomical and physiological traits necessary for shade tolerance.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Low light inhibited maize growth.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light made maize leaves thinner.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited;leaves became thinner,numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased,number of grana increased,grana thickness increased,and the thickness of the grana lamellae increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light made maize numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased.
- Treatment
- low light stresse0
- Outcome
- numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf areae0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited;leaves became thinner,numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased,number of grana increased,grana thickness increased,and the thickness of the grana lamellae increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light made maize number of grana increased.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited;leaves became thinner,numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased,number of grana increased,grana thickness increased,and the thickness of the grana lamellae increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light made maize grana thickness increased.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited;leaves became thinner,numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased,number of grana increased,grana thickness increased,and the thickness of the grana lamellae increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Low light made maize the thickness of the grana lamellae increased.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Under low light stress,plant growth was inhibited;leaves became thinner,numbers of chloroplasts per unit of leaf area decreased,number of grana increased,grana thickness increased,and the thickness of the grana lamellae increased”
Claim · model-written summary
YY22 chloroplasts were mostly dysplastic under shade.
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“In the shade-sensitive cultivar YY22,most of the chloroplasts became dysplastic”
Claim · model-written summary
YY22 stroma lamellae swelled and grana lamellae became loose.
- Outcome
- stroma lamellae swelled and the grana lamellae became loosee0
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“the stroma lamellae swelled and the grana lamellae became loose”
Claim · model-written summary
ZD958 chloroplasts remained almost normal.
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“in the shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 the chloroplasts were almost normal with some healthy parts”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade decreased maize net photosynthetic rate(Pn).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“The net photosynthetic rate(Pn),photochemical efficiency(Fv/Fm),and actual photochemical efficiency(ΦPSⅡ) all decreased under shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade decreased maize photochemical efficiency(Fv/Fm).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“The net photosynthetic rate(Pn),photochemical efficiency(Fv/Fm),and actual photochemical efficiency(ΦPSⅡ) all decreased under shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade decreased maize actual photochemical efficiency(ΦPSⅡ).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“The net photosynthetic rate(Pn),photochemical efficiency(Fv/Fm),and actual photochemical efficiency(ΦPSⅡ) all decreased under shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade increased maize Chlorophyll content; the change was reversible.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Chlorophyll content,intercellular CO2 concentration(Ci) and non-photochemical quenching(NPQ) increased;however these were all reversible”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade increased maize intercellular CO2 concentration(Ci); the change was reversible.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Chlorophyll content,intercellular CO2 concentration(Ci) and non-photochemical quenching(NPQ) increased;however these were all reversible”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade increased maize non-photochemical quenching(NPQ); the change was reversible.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Chlorophyll content,intercellular CO2 concentration(Ci) and non-photochemical quenching(NPQ) increased;however these were all reversible”
Claim · model-written summary
All investigated variables differed significantly from control in shade-sensitive YY22.
Not reportedTreatmentDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“The values of all variables investigated were significantly higher or lower in the shade-sensitive cultivar YY22 than in the corresponding control”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly affected only Pn and Ci in shade-tolerant ZD958.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“Shading had no significant influence on the shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 except for Pn and Ci”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade-tolerant ZD958 maintained a more normal anatomical structure than YY22 under low light stress.
- Material
- ZD958e0
- Treatment
- low light stresse0
- Outcome
- anatomical structuree0
- Direction
- more normale0
- Comparator
- YY22e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“The shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 maintains more normal anatomical structure and higher photosynthetic function than the shade-sensitive YY22 under low light stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade-tolerant ZD958 maintained higher photosynthetic function than YY22 under low light stress.
- Material
- ZD958e0
- Treatment
- low light stresse0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic functione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- YY22e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize genotypes”
e0“The shade-tolerant cultivar ZD958 maintains more normal anatomical structure and higher photosynthetic function than the shade-sensitive YY22 under low light stress”
The same questions in other papers
shade · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →light · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 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.