Abstract
Water scarcity is a universal environmental constraint for agricultural sustainability and production. Two field experiments were accomplished during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons in two sites: the experimental farm of Suez Canal University, Ismailia and Romana Province, North Sinai, Egypt to evaluate 21 genotypes of maize comprising six inbred lines and their 15 F1 crosses for their drought tolerance. The experiments were arranged as a split-plot design with three replications, where moisture levels (100 and 50% of evapotranspiration) and maize genotypes were allocated to main plots and sub-plots, respectively. Results showed reduction in performance for most measured traits in response to water stress with varying degrees with yield plant-1 being the most affected. Inversely, proline and relative water content and anthesis-silking interval were increased. Correlation results confirmed the reduced grain yield with the increasing anthesis-silking interval, and suggested kernels row-1, relative water content, peroxidase activity and rows ear-1 in Ismailia, and rows ear-1, relative water content, peroxidase activity, kernel weight in Romana were indirect selection criteria for increasing yield in water scarcity environments. Principal component (PC) analysis showed that three PCs having Eigen value >1 explained 70.67 and 70.16%; 69.79 and 71.38% of the total variability among genotypes in control and stress conditions in Ismailia and Romana, respectively. The crosses P1?P3, P4?P6, P3?P5 and P1?P5 were classified as drought tolerant under Ismailia and Romana conditions. On the other hand, P1xP4, P3xP4, and P4 were considered as drought sensitive in Ismailia conditions. In addition, P5, P2?P4, P1?P4 and P5?P6 were the most affected by water deficiency under Romana conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress reduced most measured maize traits, especially yield per plant.
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- most measured traitse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- yield plant-1 being the most affectede0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in performance for most measured traits in response to water stress with varying degrees with yield plant-1 being the most affected”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress increased proline.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“proline and relative water content and anthesis-silking interval were increased”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress increased relative water content.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“proline and relative water content and anthesis-silking interval were increased”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress increased anthesis-silking interval.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“proline and relative water content and anthesis-silking interval were increased”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing anthesis-silking interval correlated with reduced grain yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced grain yield with the increasing anthesis-silking interval”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Three PCs explained 70.67% of genotype variability in Ismailia control conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three PCs having Eigen value >1 explained 70.67 and 70.16%; 69.79 and 71.38% of the total variability among genotypes in control and stress conditions in Ismailia and Romana, respectively”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Three PCs explained 70.16% of genotype variability in Ismailia stress conditions.
- Outcome
- total variability among genotypese0
- Value
- 70.16%e0
- Qualifier
- stress conditionse0
- Setting
- Ismailiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three PCs having Eigen value >1 explained 70.67 and 70.16%; 69.79 and 71.38% of the total variability among genotypes in control and stress conditions in Ismailia and Romana, respectively”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Three PCs explained 69.79% of genotype variability in Romana control conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three PCs having Eigen value >1 explained 70.67 and 70.16%; 69.79 and 71.38% of the total variability among genotypes in control and stress conditions in Ismailia and Romana, respectively”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Three PCs explained 71.38% of genotype variability in Romana stress conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three PCs having Eigen value >1 explained 70.67 and 70.16%; 69.79 and 71.38% of the total variability among genotypes in control and stress conditions in Ismailia and Romana, respectively”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P1?P3 and P4?P6 were classified as drought tolerant in Ismailia and Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crosses P1?P3, P4?P6, P3?P5 and P1?P5 were classified as drought tolerant under Ismailia and Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P4?P6 was classified as drought tolerant in Ismailia and Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crosses P1?P3, P4?P6, P3?P5 and P1?P5 were classified as drought tolerant under Ismailia and Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P3?P5 was classified as drought tolerant in Ismailia and Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crosses P1?P3, P4?P6, P3?P5 and P1?P5 were classified as drought tolerant under Ismailia and Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P1?P5 was classified as drought tolerant in Ismailia and Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crosses P1?P3, P4?P6, P3?P5 and P1?P5 were classified as drought tolerant under Ismailia and Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P1xP4 was considered drought sensitive in Ismailia.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P1xP4, P3xP4, and P4 were considered as drought sensitive in Ismailia conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P3xP4 was considered drought sensitive in Ismailia.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P1xP4, P3xP4, and P4 were considered as drought sensitive in Ismailia conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P4 was considered drought sensitive in Ismailia.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P1xP4, P3xP4, and P4 were considered as drought sensitive in Ismailia conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P5 was among the most affected by water deficiency in Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P5, P2?P4, P1?P4 and P5?P6 were the most affected by water deficiency under Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P2?P4 was among the most affected by water deficiency in Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P5, P2?P4, P1?P4 and P5?P6 were the most affected by water deficiency under Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P1?P4 was among the most affected by water deficiency in Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P5, P2?P4, P1?P4 and P5?P6 were the most affected by water deficiency under Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
P5?P6 was among the most affected by water deficiency in Romana.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P5, P2?P4, P1?P4 and P5?P6 were the most affected by water deficiency under Romana conditions”
t0“maize genotypes”