Abstract
Abstract Reduced nitrogen (N) inputs inevitably limit maize yield and its components, while increased planting density can potentially boost productivity per unit area. This study investigated the compensatory interplay between reduced N application and elevated planting density on grain yield and photosynthetic performance under water-limited conditions. Reducing N decreased grain yield, kernel number per spike, and 1000-kernel weight. Higher planting densities similarly reduced kernel number and weight, yet increased grain yield through a greater spike number per area. Under a 20% irrigation reduction with traditional N, a medium-density treatment (N180D2) increased grain yield by 19.1–41.6% and spike number by 28.0–28.2% compared to a treatment combining the same water reduction with 25% less N at traditional density (N90D1). This compensation was driven by a 23.9–25.7% increase in spike number, which offset a 9.1–11.7% reduction in kernel number per spike. Physiologically, moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional N maintained superior late-season photosynthetic capacity, with increases of 6.2–7.7% in leaf greenness, 64.4–83.1% in leaf area index, and 19.8–80.7% in crop growth rate relative to low-density, resource-reduced treatments. We conclude that a strategic increase in planting density effectively compensates for yield losses from concurrent water and N reductions by sustaining photosynthetic source strength and dry matter accumulation during critical late-growth stages. These findings provide a practical agronomic framework for maintaining maize productivity in resource-constrained environments.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing nitrogen decreased maize grain yield.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing N decreased grain yield, kernel number per spike, and 1000-kernel weight”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing nitrogen decreased kernel number per spike.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing N decreased grain yield, kernel number per spike, and 1000-kernel weight”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing nitrogen decreased 1000-kernel weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing N decreased grain yield, kernel number per spike, and 1000-kernel weight”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher planting density reduced kernel number.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher planting densities similarly reduced kernel number and weight, yet increased grain yield through a greater spike number per area”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher planting density reduced kernel weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher planting densities similarly reduced kernel number and weight, yet increased grain yield through a greater spike number per area”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher planting density increased grain yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher planting densities similarly reduced kernel number and weight, yet increased grain yield through a greater spike number per area”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher planting density increased spike number per area.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased grain yield through a greater spike number per area”
t0“Maize”
e1“Higher planting densities”
Claim · model-written summary
N180D2 increased grain yield by 19.1–41.6% relative to N90D1 under reduced irrigation.
- Treatment
- medium-density treatment (N180D2)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19.1–41.6%e0
- Comparator
- N90D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under a 20% irrigation reduction with traditional N, a medium-density treatment (N180D2) increased grain yield by 19.1–41.6% and spike number by 28.0–28.2% compared to a treatment combining the same water reduction with 25% less N at traditional density (N90D1)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
N180D2 increased spike number by 28.0–28.2% relative to N90D1.
- Treatment
- medium-density treatment (N180D2)e0
- Outcome
- spike numbere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 28.0–28.2%e0
- Comparator
- N90D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under a 20% irrigation reduction with traditional N, a medium-density treatment (N180D2) increased grain yield by 19.1–41.6% and spike number by 28.0–28.2% compared to a treatment combining the same water reduction with 25% less N at traditional density (N90D1)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The compensating treatment increased spike number by 23.9–25.7%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This compensation was driven by a 23.9–25.7% increase in spike number”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The compensating treatment reduced kernel number per spike by 9.1–11.7%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which offset a 9.1–11.7% reduction in kernel number per spike”
t0“Maize”
e1“This compensation was driven by a 23.9–25.7% increase in spike number”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate density elevation increased leaf greenness by 6.2–7.7% relative to low-density resource-reduced treatments.
- Treatment
- moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional Ne0
- Outcome
- leaf greennesse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 6.2–7.7%e0
- Comparator
- low-density, resource-reduced treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional N maintained superior late-season photosynthetic capacity, with increases of 6.2–7.7% in leaf greenness, 64.4–83.1% in leaf area index, and 19.8–80.7% in crop growth rate relative to low-density, resource-reduced treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate density elevation increased leaf area index by 64.4–83.1%.
- Treatment
- moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional Ne0
- Outcome
- leaf area indexe0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 64.4–83.1%e0
- Comparator
- low-density, resource-reduced treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional N maintained superior late-season photosynthetic capacity, with increases of 6.2–7.7% in leaf greenness, 64.4–83.1% in leaf area index, and 19.8–80.7% in crop growth rate relative to low-density, resource-reduced treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate density elevation increased crop growth rate by 19.8–80.7%.
- Treatment
- moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional Ne0
- Outcome
- crop growth ratee0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 19.8–80.7%e0
- Comparator
- low-density, resource-reduced treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional N maintained superior late-season photosynthetic capacity, with increases of 6.2–7.7% in leaf greenness, 64.4–83.1% in leaf area index, and 19.8–80.7% in crop growth rate relative to low-density, resource-reduced treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate density elevation maintained superior late-season photosynthetic capacity.
- Treatment
- moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional Ne0
- Outcome
- late-season photosynthetic capacitye0
- Direction
- superiore0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderate density elevation under reduced irrigation and traditional N maintained superior late-season photosynthetic capacity”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend strategically increasing planting density to compensate for yield losses under water and nitrogen reductions.
- Outcome
- strategic increase in planting densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a strategic increase in planting density effectively compensates for yield losses from concurrent water and N reductions by sustaining photosynthetic source strength and dry matter accumulation during critical late-growth stages”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
altitude · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
irrigation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →in vitro · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →density · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 119 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
193 papers more in this group
See all 197 papers →irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 papers →density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
654 papers more in this group
See all 658 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.