| Literature DB >> 30254649 |
Alam Sher1, Aaqil Khan1, Umair Ashraf2, Hui Hui Liu1,3, Jin Cai Li1,3.
Abstract
Plants react to the environment and to management interventions by undergoing architectural and structural modifications. A field trial was conducted in China in 2016 to study the effects of the plant population on morphological development of the maize canopy. The main objectives of the current study were (i) to characterize the effects of increased plant density on canopy morphology and stalk lodging and (ii) to explore the relationships between organ morphology and stalk lodging. The field experiment was composed of five plant densities (4.5, 6, 7.5, 9, and 15 plants m-2) of three cultivars: Zhengdan 958 (lodging-resistant cultivar), Longping 206 and Jinqiu 119 (lodging-susceptible cultivars). In response to plant densities of all the three cultivars, the lamina and sheath lengths increased in lower phytomers but decreased in upper phytomers. The lamina width and internode diameter decreased for all phytomers in response to plant densities for all the cultivars. The correlation between organ morphology, plant density and stalk lodging was linear. Data obtained from characterization used in this study (that is, canopy morphology, correlation of organ morphology with stalk lodging traits in response to various plant densities for different cultivars, etc.) will be useful in future modeling studies to predict the morphology characteristics of the canopy affected by interplant competition and stalk lodging.Entities:
Keywords: Zea mays; canopy morphology; cultivar; plant density; stalk lodging
Year: 2018 PMID: 30254649 PMCID: PMC6141682 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Equations of the final lamina length (cm) response to increased plant densities for different cultivars.
| PP | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.70 | −0.64 | −1.04 | −1.25 | −1.60 | −1.13 | −0.99 | −0.90 | ||
| 90.09 | 84.60 | 81.83 | 76.40 | 70.64 | 56.79 | 50.12 | 43.29 | ||
| 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.89 | ||
| −0.16 | −0.38 | −0.67 | −1.01 | −1.49 | −1.56 | −1.47 | −1.38 | ||
| 90.32 | 87.43 | 82.22 | 77.06 | 72.69 | 65.28 | 59.98 | 51.85 | ||
| 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.83 | ||
| −0.50 | −0.67 | −0.71 | −1.14 | −1.14 | −1.68 | −1.42 | −1.20 | ||
| 96.04 | 93.75 | 86.87 | 82.62 | 72.10 | 65.01 | 55.60 | 49.39 | ||
| 0.72 | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 0.90 |
Equations of the final lamina width (cm) response to increased plant densities for different cultivars.
| PP | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.12 | −0.15 | −0.17 | −0.18 | −0.12 | −0.14 | −0.18 | −0.23 | −0.18 | ||
| 10.12 | 10.48 | 10.56 | 10.24 | 9.2102 | 8.6364 | 8.5123 | 8.3687 | 7.1836 | ||
| 0.76 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.81 | 0.72 | ||
| – | −0.191 | −0.172 | −0.157 | −0.208 | −0.225 | −0.254 | −0.197 | −0.152 | ||
| – | 11.009 | 10.658 | 10.105 | 10.271 | 9.8834 | 9.5964 | 8.6302 | 7.4411 | ||
| 0.73 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 0.97 | |||
| −0.179 | −0.211 | −0.233 | −0.252 | −0.251 | −0.299 | −0.264 | −0.210 | −0.238 | ||
| 10.089 | 10.64 | 10.8 | 10.595 | 9.7349 | 9.9759 | 9.1595 | 7.8331 | 7.526 | ||
| 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.76 |
Equations of the final sheath length (cm) response to increased plant densities for different cultivars.
| PP | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | −0.26 | −0.25 | −0.27 | −0.27 | −0.35 | 0.36 | −0.31 | −0.27 | −0.27 | |
| b | 19.07 | 17.44 | 16.15 | 14.50 | 13.89 | 12.87 | 11.05 | 9.75 | 9.25 | |
| R2 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.82 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.94 | |
| a | – | −0.53 | −0.25 | −0.18 | −0.30 | −0.47 | −0.43 | −0.40 | −0.38 | |
| b | – | 18.35 | 15.75 | 13.31 | 13.31 | 13.75 | 12.26 | 11.00 | 9.95 | |
| R2 | – | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.89 | |
| a | −0.48 | −0.44 | −0.38 | −0.51 | −0.54 | −0.46 | −0.43 | −0.30 | −0.19 | |
| b | 21.88 | 18.97 | 17.16 | 16.40 | 14.41 | 12.39 | 11.55 | 9.63 | 8.15 | |
| 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.77 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.89 |
Equations of the final internode length (cm) response to increased plant densities for different cultivars.
| PP | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.17 | −0.16 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.12 | −0.10 | −0.10 | ||
| 8.99 | 8.27 | 7.19 | 5.77 | 5.44 | 4.81 | 4.50 | ||
| 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 0.62 | ||
| −0.10 | −0.15 | −0.21 | −0.11 | −0.16 | −0.14 | −0.14 | ||
| 8.77 | 9.25 | 9.01 | 7.15 | 6.74 | 6.27 | 5.49 | ||
| 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 0.79 | ||
| −0.25 | −0.15 | −0.16 | −0.05 | −0.15 | −0.04 | −0.08 | ||
| 9.78 | 8.50 | 8.17 | 6.23 | 6.55 | 4.56 | 4.70 | ||
| 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 0.82 |
Equations of the final internode diameter (mm) response to increased plant densities for different cultivars.
| PP | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.56 | −0.50 | −0.46 | −0.42 | −0.43 | −0.50 | −0.44 | −0.41 | −0.29 | −0.26 | −0.21 | −0.14 | ||
| 24.59 | 22.97 | 21.47 | 19.45 | 17.78 | 16.83 | 15.08 | 12.93 | 10.18 | 8.36 | 6.89 | 5.69 | ||
| 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.72 | ||
| −0.56 | −0.50 | −0.73 | −0.72 | −0.64 | −0.73 | −0.66 | −0.54 | −0.49 | −0.50 | −0.47 | −0.42 | ||
| 24.48 | 22.93 | 23.07 | 21.61 | 19.11 | 18.48 | 15.94 | 13.12 | 10.78 | 9.50 | 8.20 | 7.31 | ||
| 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.70 | 0.69 | ||
| −0.52 | −0.48 | −0.43 | −0.40 | −0.41 | −0.46 | −0.32 | −0.39 | −0.43 | −0.30 | −0.38 | −0.30 | ||
| 24.81 | 23.36 | 21.66 | 19.71 | 17.69 | 16.53 | 14.13 | 13.30 | 11.73 | 9.07 | 8.63 | 7.00 | ||
| 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.69 | ||
Equations of the lodging parameters: stem bending resistance (N), stem crushing strength (N) at basal internode three.
| PP | Lodging % at anthesis stage | SBR (N) at internode three | SCS (N) at internode three | SBR (N) at internode three at 15° | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.444 | −11.553 | −20.12 | −5.5545 | ||
| −3.195 | 352.43 | 480.98 | 123.49 | ||
| 0.995∗∗ | 0.9237∗∗ | 0.9716∗∗ | 0.8985∗∗ | ||
| 5.216 | −12.644 | −20.418 | −5.315 | ||
| − 12.542 | 347.38 | 456.24 | 112.95 | ||
| 0.988∗∗ | 0.9448∗∗ | 0.9722∗∗ | 0.844∗∗ | ||
| 6.021 | −12.367 | −20.237 | −5.2037 | ||
| − 15.80 | 321.24 | 435.15 | 105.17 | ||
| 0.997∗∗ | 0.9319∗∗ | 0.9554∗∗ | 0.8575∗∗ |
Equations of the lodging parameters: stem bending resistance (N), stem crushing strength (N) at basal internode three with internode morphology.
| Correlation of SBR and ID at internode three | Correlation of SCS and ID at internode three | Correlation of SBR and ID at internode three at 15° | Correlation of SBR and ID/L at internode three | Correlation of SCS ID/L at internode three | Correlation of SBR and ID/L at internode at three 15° | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0485 | 0.1028 | 0.0291 | 0.0057 | 0.0037 | 0.0112 | ||
| 7.321 | 12.045 | 10.739 | 0.9944 | 1.3307 | 1.6182 | ||
| 0.9431∗∗ | 0.9686∗∗ | 0.9325∗∗ | 0.7253∗∗ | 0.8146∗∗ | 0.7834∗ | ||
| 0.0511 | 0.1063 | 0.0285 | 0.0059 | 0.0036 | 0.0142 | ||
| 7.8734 | 11.821 | 10.99 | 1.1566 | 1.3704 | 1.4196 | ||
| 0.9826∗∗ | 0.9932∗∗ | 0.8903∗∗ | 0.9607∗∗ | 0.7417∗∗ | 0.8633∗∗ | ||
| 0.0467 | 0.1114 | 0.0291 | 0.0037 | 0.0023 | 0.0087 | ||
| 7.6482 | 12.054 | 11.119 | 1.3727 | 1.6432 | 1.7385 | ||
| 0.9285∗∗ | 0.988∗∗ | 0.9156∗∗ | 0.8995∗ | 0.9249∗∗ | 0.9077∗ |