Abstract
In 2 field experiments, shading which differed in duration and date of initiation was applied to normal stands of forage maize cv. LG11. Short shading during vegetative development affected leaf area, plant ht., stem thickness and reproductive development but final effects on DM yield and quality were small. Short shading during silking drastically reduced ear size and final ear yield. Although the deleterious effect on ear yield was partly compensated for by higher stover yield, productivity was low after the shading tents were removed. Digestibility was also greatly reduced because production of total DM was affected more than production of partly indigestible cell walls. Short shading soon after silking curtailed cell-wall formation more than DM production and crop digestibility was not adversely affected. Reduction in DM production remained large especially in the ear because of grain abortion. Shading after grain set stimulated the depletion of short carbohydrates in the stover and slowed down the decrease in the cell wall content of the whole crop. Crops shaded for long periods yielded more than expected on the basis of the short treatments. Long shading treatments lasted until final sampling and the earlier a long treatment was initiated, the greater the reduction in yield. The same was true for whole-crop digestibility, except in the earliest shading treatment in which poor vegetative development accompanied poor ear development. (Abstract retrieved from CAB Abstracts by CABI’s permission)
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Short vegetative shading affected leaf area, height, stem thickness and reproductive development.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Short shading during vegetative developmente0
- Outcome
- leaf area, plant ht., stem thickness and reproductive developmente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Short shading during vegetative development affected leaf area, plant ht., stem thickness and reproductive development”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Final dry matter yield and quality effects of short vegetative shading were small.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Short shading during vegetative developmente1
- Outcome
- DM yield and qualitye0
- Direction
- smalle0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“final effects on DM yield and quality were small”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Short shading during vegetative development”
Claim · model-written summary
Short shading during silking drastically reduced ear size and yield.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Short shading during silkinge0
- Outcome
- ear size and final ear yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Short shading during silking drastically reduced ear size and final ear yield.”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Stover yield increased and partly offset ear yield loss after silking shade.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“deleterious effect on ear yield was partly compensated for by higher stover yield”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Short shading during silking”
Claim · model-written summary
Productivity was low after removal of shade tents.
Verbatim
e0“productivity was low after the shading tents were removed”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Digestibility was greatly reduced after silking shade.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Digestibility was also greatly reduced because production of total DM was affected more than production of partly indigestible cell walls.”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Short shading during silking”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade soon after silking curtailed cell wall formation more than dry matter production.
Verbatim
e0“Short shading soon after silking curtailed cell-wall formation more than DM production”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Digestibility was not adversely affected by shade soon after silking.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Short shading soon after silkinge1
- Outcome
- crop digestibilitye0
- Direction
- not adversely affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“crop digestibility was not adversely affected”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Short shading soon after silking”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter production remained greatly reduced, especially in the ear, after post silking shade.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Short shading soon after silkinge1
- Outcome
- DM productione0
- Direction
- Reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Reduction in DM production remained large especially in the ear because of grain abortion.”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Short shading soon after silking”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade after grain set stimulated short carbohydrate depletion in stover.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Shading after grain sete0
- Outcome
- depletion of short carbohydrates in the stovere0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Shading after grain set stimulated the depletion of short carbohydrates in the stover”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade after grain set slowed the decline in whole crop cell wall content.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- Shading after grain sete1
- Outcome
- cell wall content of the whole crope0
- Direction
- slowed downe0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“slowed down the decrease in the cell wall content of the whole crop”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
e1“Shading after grain set”
Claim · model-written summary
Long shaded crops yielded more than predicted from short treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Crops shaded for long periods yielded more than expected on the basis of the short treatments.”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier initiation of long shading caused greater yield reduction.
Verbatim
e0“the earlier a long treatment was initiated, the greater the reduction in yield”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier long shade generally produced a greater reduction in whole crop digestibility.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The same was true for whole-crop digestibility, except in the earliest shading treatment in which poor vegetative development accompanied poor ear development.”
t0“forage maize (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
shade · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →shade · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →shade · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 46 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →shade · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
shade · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
shade · cytology · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.