Abstract
Maize is one of the most important crops globally that provides food, feed, and bioenergy. However, shading stress threatens maize production. In this study, we investigated the effects of shading on photosynthate accumulation and distribution of summer maize in the field. Zhengdan958 (ZD958) and Denghai 605 (DH605) were used as experimental materials in a field experiment running from 2013 to 2015. Shading treatments were applied over different growth stages: from the tassel stage (VT) to physiological maturity (R6) (S1), from the six-leaf stage (V6) to VT (S2), and from emergence stage (VE) to R6 (S3). The effects of shading on plant photosynthesis, photosynthate accumulation and distribution, and yield were evaluated in comparison to ambient sunlight. Shading significantly decreased the leaf area, SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, dry matter accumulation, and grain yield. During the 3-year experimental period, grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively. 13CO2 stable isotope tracing revealed that shading differentially affected the photosynthate transfer rate in different stages; photosynthates were transferred from top to bottom plant parts, in the order control > S2 > S1 > S3. We conclude that shading clearly disrupted photosynthate metabolism, and reduced the photosynthate accumulation in the grain, resulting in a yield reduction.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly decreased leaf area.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading significantly decreased the leaf area, SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, dry matter accumulation, and grain yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly decreased SPAD value.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading significantly decreased the leaf area, SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, dry matter accumulation, and grain yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly decreased net photosynthetic rate.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading significantly decreased the leaf area, SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, dry matter accumulation, and grain yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly decreased dry matter accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading significantly decreased the leaf area, SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, dry matter accumulation, and grain yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading significantly decreased grain yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading significantly decreased the leaf area, SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, dry matter accumulation, and grain yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ZD958 grain yield fell 83.4% under S3 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ZD958 grain yield fell 34.2% under S2 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ZD958 grain yield fell 53.1% under S1 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DH605 grain yield fell 79.3% under S3 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DH605 grain yield fell 24.2% under S2 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DH605 grain yield fell 57.6% under S1 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields of ZD958 and DH605 were reduced by 83.4%, 34.2%, 53.1% and 79.3%, 24.2%, 57.6% as compared to the CK by treatments S3, S2, and S1, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthate transfer from top to bottom ranked control above S2, S1 and S3.
- Treatment
- shadinge1
- Outcome
- photosynthate transfer ratee1
- Direction
- control > S2 > S1 > S3e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“photosynthates were transferred from top to bottom plant parts, in the order control > S2 > S1 > S3”
e1“shading differentially affected the photosynthate transfer rate in different stages”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced photosynthate accumulation in grain.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shading clearly disrupted photosynthate metabolism, and reduced the photosynthate accumulation in the grain”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
shade · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
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
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 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
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.