Abstract
Drought or/and salinity stress significantly impact maize water use and production. However, comprehensive investigations into the genotype × environment interactions (water or/and salinity) on maize growth, water use, and water productivity (WP) and the physiological controlling factors governing maize production remain lacking. In the present study, we rigorously investigated the effect of water or/and salinity on leaf physiological and morphological characteristics, evapotranspiration (ET), yield and its components (kernel number, KN; thousand kernel weight, TKW) for two genotypes (XY335 and ZD958) over two years, and revealed the mechanisms of yield response to these traits. We found that stomatal conductance (gs) and net photosynthesis rate (A), aboveground biomass (AGB), ET, and KN were higher in XY335 compared to those in ZD958 in both years. Water and salinity stress reduced gs, A, leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR), AGB, ET, yield, and KN, while increasing intrinsic water use efficiency. Simultaneous water and salinity stress exhibited an antagonistic effect on WP. Yield was modulated by both ET and yield components. ET was mainly regulated by LA, and only KN was driven by A under salt-free condition. However, under salinity stress, ET was jointly regulated by gs and fPAR, and both gs and A affected KN and TKW. Importantly, a decrease in ET induced by stress did not always lead to yield reduction, provided the reduction remained below about 20% of the maximum value. Thus, mildly regulated deficit irrigation or adapting to low-concentration soil salinity stress was preferable for sustaining yield and improving WP. Nevertheless, a combination of both approaches diminished the water-saving benefits of individual farmland management practices. This study filled the knowledge gap regarding the physiological mechanisms of driving yield variations and offered valuable insights for effective crop water management in drought and soil-salinized regions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
XY335 had higher stomatal conductance and photosynthesis than ZD958 in both years.
- Material
- XY335e0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance (gs) and net photosynthesis rate (A)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
- Comparator
- ZD958e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stomatal conductance (gs) and net photosynthesis rate (A), aboveground biomass (AGB), ET, and KN were higher in XY335 compared to those in ZD958 in both years”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
XY335 had higher aboveground biomass, evapotranspiration and kernel number than ZD958.
- Material
- XY335e0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomass (AGB), ET, and KNe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
- Comparator
- ZD958e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aboveground biomass (AGB), ET, and KN were higher in XY335 compared to those in ZD958 in both years”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water and salinity stress reduced stomatal conductance and photosynthesis.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and salinity stress reduced gs, A, leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR), AGB, ET, yield, and KN”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water and salinity stress reduced leaf area and radiation interception.
- Treatment
- Water and salinity stresse0
- Outcome
- leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and salinity stress reduced gs, A, leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR), AGB, ET, yield, and KN”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water and salinity stress reduced biomass, evapotranspiration and yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and salinity stress reduced gs, A, leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR), AGB, ET, yield, and KN”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water and salinity stress reduced kernel number.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and salinity stress reduced gs, A, leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR), AGB, ET, yield, and KN”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water and salinity stress increased intrinsic water use efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and salinity stress reduced gs, A, leaf area (LA), the fraction of canopy radiation interception (fPAR), AGB, ET, yield, and KN, while increasing intrinsic water use efficiency.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined water and salinity stress had an antagonistic effect on water productivity.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Simultaneous water and salinity stress exhibited an antagonistic effect on WP.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was modulated by evapotranspiration and yield components.
Not reportedOrgan / stageTreatmentComparatorSettingDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was modulated by both ET and yield components.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area mainly regulated evapotranspiration.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ET was mainly regulated by LA”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthesis drove kernel number only without salt.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only KN was driven by A under salt-free condition”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under salinity, stomatal conductance and intercepted radiation jointly regulated evapotranspiration.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under salinity stress, ET was jointly regulated by gs and fPAR”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under salinity, stomatal conductance and photosynthesis affected kernel number and weight.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under salinity stress, ET was jointly regulated by gs and fPAR, and both gs and A affected KN and TKW”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A stress-induced evapotranspiration decrease below about 20% of maximum did not always reduce yield.
- Treatment
- stresse0
- Outcome
- yield reductione0
- Direction
- did not alwayse0
- Value
- about 20%e0
- Qualifier
- below about 20% of the maximum valuee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a decrease in ET induced by stress did not always lead to yield reduction, provided the reduction remained below about 20% of the maximum value”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors preferred mild deficit irrigation for sustaining yield and improving water productivity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mildly regulated deficit irrigation or adapting to low-concentration soil salinity stress was preferable for sustaining yield and improving WP”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors preferred adaptation to low soil salinity for sustaining yield and improving water productivity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“adapting to low-concentration soil salinity stress was preferable for sustaining yield and improving WP”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining deficit irrigation with salinity adaptation diminished individual water-saving benefits.
- Outcome
- water-saving benefitse0
- Direction
- diminishede0
- Comparator
- individual farmland management practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a combination of both approaches diminished the water-saving benefits of individual farmland management practices”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →salinity · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →salinity · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
230 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
253 papers more in this group
See all 257 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.