4.7 Article

Delayed pollination and low availability of assimilates are major factors causing maize kernel abortion

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 69, 期 7, 页码 1599-1613

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ery013

关键词

Abortion; ethylene; fructose; glucose; invertase; kernel set; maize; pollination time; sucrose

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371558]
  2. China Agriculture Research System [CARS-02-13]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP180103834]
  4. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0300301]
  5. Chinese Universities Scientific Fund [2015QC095]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selective seed abortion is a survival strategy adopted by many species that sacrifices some seeds to allow the remaining ones to set. While in evolutionary terms this is a successful approach, it causes huge losses to crop yields. A pollination time gap (PTG) has been suggested to be associated with position-related grain abortion. To test this hypothesis, we developed a novel approach to alter the natural pattern of maize (Zea mays L.) pollination and to examine the impact of PTGs on kernel growth and the underlying physiological basis. When apical and basal kernels were synchronously pollinated, the basal kernels set and matured but the apical kernels were aborted at an early stage. Delaying pollination to the basal ovaries suppressed their development and reduced invertase activity and sugar levels, which allowed the apical kernels to set and grow normally. In situ localization revealed normal cell wall invertase activity in apical and basal kernels under synchronous pollination but reduced activity in the delayed-pollinated kernels independent of their position. Starch, which was abundant in basal kernel areas, was absent in the apical kernel regions under synchronous pollination but apparent with delayed pollination. Our analyses identified PTG-related sink strength and a low level of local assimilates as the main causes of grain abortion.

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