4.7 Article

Effect of Water Supply on Spectral Traits and Their Relationship with the Productivity of Sweet Corns

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy9020063

关键词

sweet corn; normalized vegetation differential index; SPAD; nutritional quality; water deficiency

资金

  1. National Research, Development Innovation Office, Hungary [GINOP -2.2.1-15-2016-00021]
  2. Higher Education Institutional Excellence Program - Ministry of Human Capacities [1783-3/2018/FEKUTSTRAT]
  3. Higher Education Institutional Excellence Programme of the Ministry of Human Capacities in Hungary [20428-3/2018/FEKUTSTRAT]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three super-sweet corn hybrids (Zea mays L. convar. saccharata) with different ripening characteristics were grown in three water supplies (regularly irrigated, deficit-irrigated, and unirrigated) to examine the spectral reflectance at leaf and canopy levels, leaf area index (LAI) during the stage of development and their relationship with the yield and nutritional quality. Under unirrigated conditions, the plant's height, diameter, and weight of ears per plants, as well as total carotenoid content of kernels, decreased, SPAD values of leaves, normalized vegetation differential index (NDVI) and LAI were low. The difference in SPAD and LAI was higher between the hybrids during the silking than the tasseling period under water deficiency. Under unirrigated dry conditions, no correlation was found between SPAD, NDVI, and yield. Using deficit irrigation, SPAD measured during tasseling correlated closely with the individual husked ear and the final yields as well as the sugar and carotene contents of kernels. Under this condition, NDVI did not correlate with the yield, but LAI was correlated with the yield and its carotene content. Under deficit irrigated conditions, the 46 to 49 range of SPAD measured during tasseling predicted 23.5 to 26.7 t ha(-1) depending on the hybrid, but this range predicted a yield lower by 6.4 to 10.1% during silking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据