4.7 Article

Coupling time to silking with plant growth rate in maize

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 73-85

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.02.003

关键词

maize; phenology; time to silking; plant growth rate; biomass partitioning

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In maize (Zea mays L.), progress towards pistillate flower maturity (silking) is highly dependent upon the environmental conditions around flowering. Under conditions that inhibit plant growth, female flower development is delayed relative to that of the male flowers resulting in an increase in the anthesis-silking interval (ASI). Although variation in ASI has been extensively documented, its relationship to plant growth is not well understood. Therefore, we developed a conceptual basis and experimental approach for quantifying and analyzing the process of female flowering in maize in response to variation in plant growth rate during the flowering period. Time to silking depends on biomass accumulation at the ear level, as silking for each plant is a developmental stage dependent upon ear expansion growth. Because plants within a maize canopy differ in their growth rate around flowering, plants with rapid growth rate reach silking earlier than the ones growing at lower rates. This is a consequence of differential accumulation of ear biomass around anthesis. As such, quantifying canopy plant-to-plant variability in ear growth around anthesis is a critical component for resolving time to silking for the population of plants. Moreover, plant biomass partitioning to the developing ear (ear growth rate/total plant growth rate around flowering) differs depending on the plant growth rate, and among genotypes. In order to resume this complexity, we developed a simple plant biomass growth framework to quantify time to silking for maize plant populations that takes into account plant-to-plant growth variability and partitioning of biomass to the developing ear around flowering. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

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