Abstract
Abstract A field experiment was performed to study the effects of waterlogging for different durations (3 and 6 days) on grain filling and endosperm cell proliferation of summer maize hybrids DengHai605 ( DH 605) and ZhengDan958 ( ZD 958) at the third leaf stage (V3), the sixth leaf stage (V6) and the 10th day after the tasselling stage (10 VT ). Results showed that waterlogging damages on grain filling and endosperm cell proliferation varied with growth stage and duration of waterlogging. The most significant effect of waterlogging was observed at V3, followed by V6 and 10 VT . Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively. Waterlogging damages on grain filling and endosperm cell proliferation resulted in a significant reduction in grain yield. Waterlogging at V3 had the most yield reduction, followed by V6 and 10 VT . Yield reduction after waterlogging for 6 days at different stage was about twice as much as that after waterlogging for 3 days. Clearly, the most significant inhibition of grain growth for waterlogging was observed at V3, followed by V6 and 10 VT . The inhibition was enhanced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations. Endosperm cell number and grain weight was decreased by 8.3–24.1 % and 1.2–10.8 % after waterlogging for 3 days, while decreased by 12.9–32.2 % and 4.6–14.7 % after waterlogging for 6 days, compared to CK .
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging at V3 caused the greatest damage, followed by V6 and 10 VT.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“The most significant effect of waterlogging was observed at V3, followed by V6 and 10 VT .”
Claim · model-written summary
For DH 605, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced Endosperm cell content by 37.1 %.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For DH 605, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced average endosperm cell proliferation rate by 51.9 %.
- Material
- DH 605e0
- Treatment
- V3‐6e0
- Outcome
- average endosperm cell proliferation ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 51.9 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For DH 605, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced grain weight by 13.6 %.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For DH 605, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced grain‐filling rate by 12.1 %.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For ZD 958, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced Endosperm cell content by 27.3 %.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For ZD 958, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced average endosperm cell proliferation rate by 51.1 %.
- Material
- ZD 958e0
- Treatment
- V3‐6e0
- Outcome
- average endosperm cell proliferation ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 51.1 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For ZD 958, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced grain weight by 17.4 %.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
For ZD 958, waterlogging at V3 for 6 days reduced grain‐filling rate by 14.3 %.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell content, average endosperm cell proliferation rate, grain weight and grain‐filling rate were reduced significantly with increasing waterlogging durations, with the most significant (P < 0.05) reduction in V3‐6 with a decrease of 37.1 %, 51.9 %, 13.6 % and 12.1 % for DH 605, and 27.3 %, 51.1 %, 17.4 % and 14.3 % for ZD 958, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Waterlogging significantly reduced grain yield through damage to grain filling and endosperm cell proliferation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Waterlogging damages on grain filling and endosperm cell proliferation resulted in a significant reduction in grain yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reduction was greatest after waterlogging at V3, then V6, then 10 VT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Waterlogging at V3 had the most yield reduction, followed by V6 and 10 VT .”
Claim · model-written summary
Six days of waterlogging caused about twice the yield reduction of three days.
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 6 dayse0
- Outcome
- Yield reductione0
- Direction
- twice as muche0
- Value
- about twicee0
- Comparator
- waterlogging for 3 dayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Yield reduction after waterlogging for 6 days at different stage was about twice as much as that after waterlogging for 3 days.”
Claim · model-written summary
Endosperm cell number decreased by 8.3–24.1 % after 3 days of waterlogging compared with CK.
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 3 dayse0
- Outcome
- Endosperm cell numbere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 8.3–24.1 %e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell number and grain weight was decreased by 8.3–24.1 % and 1.2–10.8 % after waterlogging for 3 days, while decreased by 12.9–32.2 % and 4.6–14.7 % after waterlogging for 6 days, compared to CK .”
Claim · model-written summary
grain weight decreased by 1.2–10.8 % after 3 days of waterlogging compared with CK.
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 3 dayse0
- Outcome
- grain weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 1.2–10.8 %e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell number and grain weight was decreased by 8.3–24.1 % and 1.2–10.8 % after waterlogging for 3 days, while decreased by 12.9–32.2 % and 4.6–14.7 % after waterlogging for 6 days, compared to CK .”
Claim · model-written summary
Endosperm cell number decreased by 12.9–32.2 % after 6 days of waterlogging compared with CK.
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 6 dayse0
- Outcome
- Endosperm cell numbere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 12.9–32.2 %e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell number and grain weight was decreased by 8.3–24.1 % and 1.2–10.8 % after waterlogging for 3 days, while decreased by 12.9–32.2 % and 4.6–14.7 % after waterlogging for 6 days, compared to CK .”
Claim · model-written summary
grain weight decreased by 4.6–14.7 % after 6 days of waterlogging compared with CK.
- Treatment
- waterlogging for 6 dayse0
- Outcome
- grain weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 4.6–14.7 %e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Endosperm cell number and grain weight was decreased by 8.3–24.1 % and 1.2–10.8 % after waterlogging for 3 days, while decreased by 12.9–32.2 % and 4.6–14.7 % after waterlogging for 6 days, compared to CK .”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · cytology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
flooding · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 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.