Abstract
The study of crop response to deficit irrigation is important for reducing agricultural water use in arid areas. Two experiments were conducted in an arid region of northwestern China in 2014 and 2015 to investigate the responses of the flowering characteristics (pollen shed by male inbreds, silk emergence of female inbreds) and yield components of maize ( Zea mays L.) inbred lines to deficit irrigation at the vegetative (V) and flowering (F) stages. There were five irrigation treatments in each year, which were combinations of full irrigation (Stage 2), 50% of full irrigation (Stage 1), and no irrigation (Stage 0) at vegetative (V2, V1, V0) and flowering stages (F2, F1, F0). Results showed that kernel number (KN) ear −1 had significant positive correlations with the total number of exposed silks ear −1 (SN X ), seed‐set capacity (SC), silking rate ear −1 ( k e ), silking rate of the female population ( k f ), and total pollen density at ear height (TPD) but that KN ear −1 had a significant negative correlation with the anthesis–silking interval (ASI). Water deficit at vegetative or flowering stages reduced SN X , k f , k e , SC, and TPD. Water deficit at flowering stage increased ASI. Water deficit at both stages decreased KN ear −1 and seed yield. There were no significant differences in pollen viability and kernel weight in any of the irrigation treatments. Treatment at V1F2 had no significant effects on flowering characteristics, KN ear −1 , or seed yield; however, it reduced the irrigation amount by 26% over the two stages. Thus, V1F2 is recommended as an optimum regime for limited irrigation in this region.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel number was positively correlated with five silk and pollen measures.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“kernel number (KN) ear −1 had significant positive correlations with the total number of exposed silks ear −1 (SN X ), seed‐set capacity (SC), silking rate ear −1 ( k e ), silking rate of the female population ( k f ), and total pollen density at ear height (TPD)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel number was negatively correlated with anthesis–silking interval.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“KN ear −1 had a significant negative correlation with the anthesis–silking interval (ASI)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced SN X.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at vegetative or flowering stages reduced SN X , k f , k e , SC, and TPD”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced k f.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at vegetative or flowering stages reduced SN X , k f , k e , SC, and TPD”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced k e.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at vegetative or flowering stages reduced SN X , k f , k e , SC, and TPD”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced SC.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at vegetative or flowering stages reduced SN X , k f , k e , SC, and TPD”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit reduced TPD.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at vegetative or flowering stages reduced SN X , k f , k e , SC, and TPD”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage water deficit increased anthesis–silking interval.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at flowering stage increased ASI”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit at both stages decreased KN ear −1.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at both stages decreased KN ear −1 and seed yield”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit at both stages decreased seed yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit at both stages decreased KN ear −1 and seed yield”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments did not significantly differ in pollen viability.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in pollen viability and kernel weight in any of the irrigation treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments did not significantly differ in kernel weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in pollen viability and kernel weight in any of the irrigation treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
V1F2 had no significant effect on flowering characteristics.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment at V1F2 had no significant effects on flowering characteristics, KN ear −1 , or seed yield”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
V1F2 had no significant effect on KN ear −1.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment at V1F2 had no significant effects on flowering characteristics, KN ear −1 , or seed yield”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
V1F2 had no significant effect on seed yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment at V1F2 had no significant effects on flowering characteristics, KN ear −1 , or seed yield”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
V1F2 reduced irrigation amount by 26% over the two stages.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it reduced the irrigation amount by 26% over the two stages”
t0“Maize”
e1“Treatment at V1F2”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend V1F2 as an optimum limited irrigation regime in the region.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“V1F2 is recommended as an optimum regime for limited irrigation in this region”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
drought · phenology · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →stage · phenology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
stage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →stage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
94 papers more in this group
See all 98 papers →drought · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
299 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
349 papers more in this group
See all 353 papers →drought · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
307 papers in the same direction as this paper · 77 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
381 papers more in this group
See all 385 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.