Abstract
Abstract Drought severely threatens the growth and productivity of cereals, including maize and sorghum. Despite their genetic relatedness, sorghum exhibits better drought tolerance than maize, and the physiological basis behind such differential response is largely unknown. Humic acid (HA) is a stress-relieving biostimulant that can boost drought resilience in plants; however, its mechanism of action remains vague. Herein, the reproductive growth, physiological responses, yield, and grain quality of maize and sorghum under increased field-drought conditions (100%, 80%, and 60% field capacity) and the ameliorative effects of seed priming in HA (100 mg L −1 ) were simultaneously investigated. Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions. Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively. These differences correlated with lower oxidative damage and higher osmolytes, flavonoids, phenols, and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) in sorghum. HA priming mitigated drought-induced damages and enhanced biomass accumulation, photosynthesis, osmolyte production, non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants, yield traits, and grain quality indices such as grain carbohydrates, protein, oil, and fatty acid composition in both species, with maize being generally more responsive than sorghum. These findings highlight the distinct physiological responses of maize and sorghum to drought and demonstrate that HA priming is a sustainable approach to improve drought tolerance, productivity, and grain quality in these and potentially other crops in drought-prone lands. Graphical Abstract
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Under severe drought, maize stem dry mass was reduced by up to 67.3%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under severe drought, maize net photosynthesis was reduced by up to 68.1%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under severe drought, maize grain yield was reduced by 63.9%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under severe drought, sorghum stem dry mass was reduced by 47.4%.
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under severe drought, sorghum net photosynthesis was reduced by 53.6%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Under severe drought, sorghum grain yield was reduced by 54.6%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought significantly reduced biomass and photosynthetic efficiency in maize and sorghum.
- Taxon
- Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- Drought stresse2
- Outcome
- biomass, photosynthetic efficiencye2
- Direction
- reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions”
t0“Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought significantly reduced yield traits and grain quality indices in maize and sorghum.
- Taxon
- Zea mays and Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolorZea mayst0
- Treatment
- Drought stresse2
- Outcome
- yield traits, and grain quality indicese2
- Direction
- reducede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions”
t0“Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum showed smaller drought-induced reductions than maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Under severe drought, maize exhibited reductions up to 67.3% in stem dry mass, 68.1% in net photosynthesis, and 63.9% in grain yield, compared to 47.4%, 53.6%, and 54.6% reductions in sorghum, respectively”
e2“Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum showed lower oxidative damage under drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“These differences correlated with lower oxidative damage and higher osmolytes, flavonoids, phenols, and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) in sorghum”
e2“Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum showed higher osmolytes, flavonoids and phenols under drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“These differences correlated with lower oxidative damage and higher osmolytes, flavonoids, phenols, and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) in sorghum”
e2“Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum showed higher polyphenol oxidase (PPO) under drought.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“These differences correlated with lower oxidative damage and higher osmolytes, flavonoids, phenols, and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) in sorghum”
e2“Drought stress significantly reduced biomass, photosynthetic efficiency, yield traits, and grain quality indices in both species, with sorghum consistently demonstrating smaller reductions”
Claim · model-written summary
HA priming enhanced biomass accumulation and photosynthesis under drought in maize and sorghum.
- Taxon
- Zea mays and Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolorZea mayst0
- Treatment
- HA priminge4
- Outcome
- biomass accumulation, photosynthesise4
- Direction
- enhancede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“HA priming mitigated drought-induced damages and enhanced biomass accumulation, photosynthesis, osmolyte production, non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants, yield traits, and grain quality indices such as grain carbohydrates, protein, oil, and fatty acid composition in both species, with maize being generally more responsive than sorghum”
t0“Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor”
Claim · model-written summary
HA priming enhanced osmolyte production and non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants under drought.
- Treatment
- HA priminge4
- Outcome
- osmolyte production, non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidantse4
- Direction
- enhancede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“HA priming mitigated drought-induced damages and enhanced biomass accumulation, photosynthesis, osmolyte production, non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants, yield traits, and grain quality indices such as grain carbohydrates, protein, oil, and fatty acid composition in both species, with maize being generally more responsive than sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
HA priming enhanced yield traits and grain quality indices under drought.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“HA priming mitigated drought-induced damages and enhanced biomass accumulation, photosynthesis, osmolyte production, non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants, yield traits, and grain quality indices such as grain carbohydrates, protein, oil, and fatty acid composition in both species, with maize being generally more responsive than sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize was generally more responsive to HA priming than sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“HA priming mitigated drought-induced damages and enhanced biomass accumulation, photosynthesis, osmolyte production, non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants, yield traits, and grain quality indices such as grain carbohydrates, protein, oil, and fatty acid composition in both species, with maize being generally more responsive than sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
HA priming is a sustainable approach to improve drought tolerance, productivity and grain quality in maize and sorghum and potentially other crops.
- Taxon
- Zea mays and Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolorZea mayst0
- Outcome
- drought tolerance, productivity, and grain qualitye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“demonstrate that HA priming is a sustainable approach to improve drought tolerance, productivity, and grain quality in these and potentially other crops in drought-prone lands”
t0“Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →drought · yield · SorghumResults differ
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →drought · growth · SorghumResults differ
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →drought · quality: grain · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
other · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →seed treatment · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →drought · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →seed treatment · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →8 of 17 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.