Abstract
ABSTRACT Grain‐filling rate and duration largely affect the grain‐filling capacity, which determines the grain yield of maize ( Zea mays L.). Nevertheless, there is little about the mechanism of how various soil mulching practices affect the leaf photosynthetic potential and subsequent grain‐filling capacity of maize. Field experiments were undertaken on rainfed summer maize in northwest China under flat cultivation without mulch (FNM), flat cultivation with straw mulch (FSM), flat cultivation with transparent film mulch (FTF), flat cultivation with black film mulch (FBF), ridge‐furrow cultivation with transparent film mulch (RTF) and ridge‐furrow cultivation with black film mulch (RBF) in 2021 and 2022. This study explored the impact of various soil mulching patterns on soil hydrothermal condition, leaf growth, photosynthetic potential, aboveground dry matter growth and grain‐filling process of rainfed maize. The dynamics of leaf area index (LAI) and grain‐filling were fitted with growth equations, and the relationships of grain‐filling rate, leaf area duration and LAI withering rate were quantified. The results showed that, compared with FNM, other five soil mulching practices improved soil hydrothermal condition, the maximum LAI and leaf expansion rate but reduced leaf withering rate, thereby increasing radiation interception rate (RI) at the grain‐filling stage. The soil mulching practices also increased leaf SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency and the aboveground dry matter. Compared with FNM, other five practices extended the effective grain‐filling period and the active period of grain‐filling, increased the maximum and mean grain‐filling rates, improved the 100‐kernel weight and the average kernel per ear (KPE), thereby increasing grain yields by 9.2%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 46.3% and 58.6%, respectively. The functional relationships of grain‐filling rate and accumulated leaf area duration ( y = a /(1 + b *exp(− kx ))), and the functional relationships of grain‐filling rate and LAI withering rate ( y = ( a + cx + ex 2 )/(1 + bx + dx 2 )) were first proposed. In conclusion, various soil mulching practices improved the soil hydrothermal condition, green leaves growth process and RI, which improved the leaf photosynthetic potential and the grain‐filling capacity, thereby increasing the 100‐kernel weight, KPE and grain yield. This study can help us quantitatively describe and better understand the maize grain‐filling process under various mulching practices.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Five mulching practices improved soil hydrothermal conditions compared with flat cultivation without mulch.
- Treatment
- other five soil mulching practicese0
- Outcome
- soil hydrothermal conditione0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- FNMe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with FNM, other five soil mulching practices improved soil hydrothermal condition”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased maximum leaf area index and leaf expansion rate.
- Treatment
- other five soil mulching practicese0
- Outcome
- the maximum LAI and leaf expansion ratee0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- FNMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“other five soil mulching practices improved soil hydrothermal condition, the maximum LAI and leaf expansion rate”
t0“Maize”
e1“compared with FNM”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching reduced leaf withering rate.
- Treatment
- other five soil mulching practicese1
- Outcome
- leaf withering ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- FNMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced leaf withering rate”
e1“other five soil mulching practices”
e2“compared with FNM”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased radiation interception at grain filling.
- Organ / stage
- grain‐filling stagee0
- Treatment
- other five soil mulching practicese1
- Outcome
- radiation interception rate (RI)e0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- FNMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing radiation interception rate (RI) at the grain‐filling stage”
e1“other five soil mulching practices”
e2“compared with FNM”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased leaf SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate and photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency.
- Treatment
- soil mulching practicese0
- Outcome
- leaf SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- FNMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The soil mulching practices also increased leaf SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency”
e1“Compared with FNM”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased aboveground dry matter.
- Treatment
- soil mulching practicese0
- Outcome
- aboveground dry mattere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- FNMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The soil mulching practices also increased leaf SPAD value, net photosynthetic rate, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency and the aboveground dry matter.”
e1“Compared with FNM”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching extended effective and active grain filling periods.
- Treatment
- other five practicese0
- Outcome
- effective grain‐filling period and the active period of grain‐fillinge0
- Direction
- extendede0
- Comparator
- FNMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with FNM, other five practices extended the effective grain‐filling period and the active period of grain‐filling”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased maximum and mean grain filling rates.
- Treatment
- other five practicese0
- Outcome
- maximum and mean grain‐filling ratese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- FNMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with FNM, other five practices extended the effective grain‐filling period and the active period of grain‐filling, increased the maximum and mean grain‐filling rates”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching improved 100-kernel weight and kernels per ear.
- Treatment
- other five practicese0
- Outcome
- 100‐kernel weight and the average kernel per ear (KPE)e0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- FNMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with FNM, other five practices extended the effective grain‐filling period and the active period of grain‐filling, increased the maximum and mean grain‐filling rates, improved the 100‐kernel weight and the average kernel per ear (KPE)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch increased maize grain yield by 9.2% versus FNM.
- Treatment
- flat cultivation with straw mulch (FSM)e1
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 9.2%e0
- Comparator
- flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields by 9.2%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 46.3% and 58.6%, respectively”
e1“flat cultivation with straw mulch (FSM)”
e2“flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Transparent flat film mulch increased maize grain yield by 33.7% versus FNM.
- Treatment
- flat cultivation with transparent film mulch (FTF)e1
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 33.7%e0
- Comparator
- flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields by 9.2%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 46.3% and 58.6%, respectively”
e1“flat cultivation with transparent film mulch (FTF)”
e2“flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Black flat film mulch increased maize grain yield by 38.0% versus FNM.
- Treatment
- flat cultivation with black film mulch (FBF)e1
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 38.0%e0
- Comparator
- flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields by 9.2%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 46.3% and 58.6%, respectively”
e1“flat cultivation with black film mulch (FBF)”
e2“flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Transparent ridge-furrow film mulch increased maize grain yield by 46.3% versus FNM.
- Treatment
- ridge‐furrow cultivation with transparent film mulch (RTF)e1
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 46.3%e0
- Comparator
- flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields by 9.2%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 46.3% and 58.6%, respectively”
e1“ridge‐furrow cultivation with transparent film mulch (RTF)”
e2“flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Black ridge-furrow film mulch increased maize grain yield by 58.6% versus FNM.
- Treatment
- ridge‐furrow cultivation with black film mulch (RBF)e1
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 58.6%e0
- Comparator
- flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields by 9.2%, 33.7%, 38.0%, 46.3% and 58.6%, respectively”
e1“ridge‐furrow cultivation with black film mulch (RBF)”
e2“flat cultivation without mulch (FNM)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Functional relationships were proposed between grain filling rate and accumulated leaf area duration and between grain filling rate and LAI withering rate.
- Outcome
- functional relationships of grain‐filling rate and accumulated leaf area duratione0
- Value
- y = a /(1 + b *exp(− kx ))e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The functional relationships of grain‐filling rate and accumulated leaf area duration ( y = a /(1 + b *exp(− kx ))), and the functional relationships of grain‐filling rate and LAI withering rate ( y = ( a + cx + ex 2 )/(1 + bx + dx 2 )) were first proposed.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →mulching · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 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.