DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seven Days of Consecutive Shade during the Kernel Filling Stages Caused Irreparable Yield Reduction in Corn (Zea mays L.)

  • Kim, Sang Gon (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Shin, Seonghyu (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Jung, Gun-Ho (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Guk (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kim, Chung-Guk (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Woo, Mi-Ok (Department of Plant Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Min Ju (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Seok (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Son, Beom-Young (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Yang, Woon-Ho (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kwon, Young-up (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Shim, Kang-Bo (Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration)
  • Received : 2016.07.03
  • Accepted : 2016.08.02
  • Published : 2016.09.30

Abstract

In monsoon climates, persistent shade is a troublesome weather condition with an impact on the growth and yield of corn (Zea mays L.). We imposed 7, 14, 21, and 28 days of consecutive shade (CS) on Gwangpyeongok and P3394 corn hybrids at the beginning of the kernel filling stages. Shade had little impact on leaf area and dry matter accumulation in the stem and leaves. However, dry matter accumulation in the ear was severely reduced by approximately 28% and 53% after 14 and 28 days of CS, respectively. For the components of grain yield, 7 and 14 days of shade did irreparable damage to the number of filled kernels, the kernel number per ear row, and the percent of filled kernels, but did little damage or reversible damage after removal of the shade to the 100-grain weight and the row number per ear. Shade significantly reduced the relative growth rate (RGR) due to a decrease in the net assimilation rate (NAR). These results suggest that source activity limitation by shade during the kernel filling stages leads to the inhibition of sink activity and size. The yield of biomass, ear, and grain logistically declined as the length of CS increased. Probit analysis revealed that the number of days of CS needed to cause 25% and 50% reductions in grain yield were 3.7 and 23.1, respectively. These results suggest that the plant yield loss induced by shade at the beginning of the kernel filling stages is mainly achieved within the first 7 days of consecutive shade.

Keywords

References

  1. Abendroth, L. J., R. W. Elmore, M. J. Boyer, and S. K. Marlay. 2011. Corn growth and development. PMR 1009. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa.
  2. Acton, Q. A. 2012. Issues in Life Sciences: Botany and Plant Biology Research: 2011 Edition. Scholarly Editions. Atlanta, Georgia. USA. p. 1374.
  3. Atkin, O. K., B. Botman, and H. Lambers. 1996. The causes of inherently slow growth in alpine plants : an analysis based on the underlying carbon economics of alpine and lowland Poa species. Functional Ecology. 10 : 698-707. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390504
  4. Atwell, B. J., P. E. Kriedemann, and C. G. N. Turnbull. 1999. Plants in action: adaptation in nature, performance in cultivation. Macmillan Education AU.
  5. Atwell, B. J., P. E. Kriedemann, and C. G. Turnbull. 1999. Plants in action: adaptation in nature, performance in cultivation. Macmillan Education AU. p. 423.
  6. Blackman, E. G., J. N. Black, and A. W. Kemp. 1955. Physiological and ecological studies in the analysis of plant environment. X. An analysis of the effects of seasonal variation in day light and temperature on the growth of Helianthus annuus in the vegetative phase. Ann. Bot. 14 : 527-548.
  7. Blackman, G. E. and G. L. Wilson. 1951. VII. An analysis of the differential effects of light intensity on NAR, LAR and RGR of different species. Ann. Bot. 15 : 374-408.
  8. Bliss, C. I. 1934. The method of probits. Science. 79 : 38-39. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.79.2037.38
  9. Cerrudo, A., J. Di Matteo, E. Fernandez, M. Robles, L. O. Pico, and F. H. Andrade. 2013. Yield components of maize as affected by short shading periods and thinning. Crop and Pasture Science. 64 : 580-587. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP13201
  10. Cooper, C. S. 1966. Response of birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa to various levels of shade. Crop Sci. 6 : 63-66. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1966.0011183X000600010020x
  11. Cooper, J. P. 1975. Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press. p. 482.
  12. Cui, H. Y., L. B. Jin, B. Li, J. W. Zhang, B. Zhao, S. T. Dong, and P. Liu. 2012. Effects of shading on stalks morphology, structure and lodging of summer maize in field. Sci. Agric. Sin. 17 : 3497-3505.
  13. Danalatos, Ng., Cs. Kosmas, Pm. Driessen, and N. Yassoglou. 1994. The change in the specific leaf area of maize grown under Mediterranean conditions. Agronomie, EDP Sciences. 14 : 433-443.
  14. Gmeling Meyling, H. D. 1973. Effect of light intensity and day length on the rate of leaf appearance in maize. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 21 : 68-76.
  15. Hoffmann, W. A. and Poorter, H. (2002). “Avoiding Bias in Calculations of Relative Growth Rate”. Annals of Botany 90 : 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf140
  16. Hund, A., E. Frascaroli, J. Leipner, C. Jompuk, P. Stamp, and Y. Fracheboud. 2005. Cold tolerance of the photosynthetic apparatus: pleiotropic relationship between photosynthetic performance and specific leaf area of maize seedlings. Mol. Breed. 16 : 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-005-1642-7
  17. Krieg, D. R. 1983. Photosynthetic activity during stress. Agricultural Water Management. 7 : 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3774(83)90088-4
  18. Lambers, H., F. S. Chapin III, and T. L. Pons. 2008. Plant Physiological Ecology (2nd Ed.). Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. NY. USA. p. 322.
  19. Marcelis, L. F. M. 1996. Sink strength as determinant of dry matter partitioning in the whole plant. J. Experimental Botany. 47 : 1281-1291. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/47.Special_Issue.1281
  20. Mbewe, D. M. N. and R. B. Hunter. 1986. The effect of shade stress on the performance of corn for silage versus grain. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66 : 53-60. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps86-007
  21. Medek, D. E., M. C. Ball, and M. Schortemeyer. 2007. Relative contributions of leaf area ratio and net assimilation rate to change in growth rate depend on growth temperature: comparative analysis of subantarctic and alpine grasses. New Phytologist. 175 : 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02097.x
  22. Pears, R. B. and D. R. Lee. 1969. Photosynthetic and morphological adaptation of alfalfa leaves to light intensity at different stages of maturity. Crop Sci. 9 : 791-794. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1969.0011183X000900060036x
  23. Poorter, H. and C. Remkes. 1990. Leaf-area ratio and ent assimilation rate of 24 wild-species differing in relative growth rate. Oecologia. 83 : 553-559. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317209
  24. Pooter, H. 2013. Relative growth rate and its components. 2013, Jul 27. In: PrometheusWiki. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.publish.csiro.au/prometheuswiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=Relativegrowthrateanditscomponents&preview=14
  25. Reed, A. J., G. W. Singletary, J. R. Schussler, D. R. Williamson, and A. L. Christy. 1988. Shading effects on dry matter and nitrogen partitioning, kernel number, and yield of maize. Crop Sci. 29 : 819-825.
  26. Samarraie, S. M., H. E. Osman, H. R. Mian, O. E. Simsaa, and M. S. Alami. 1990. Shade effects on growth and biomass production of corn and sunflower in western Saudi Arabia. J. King Saud. Univ. Agric. Sci. 2 : 51-59.
  27. SAS Institute Inc. 2008. SAS/STAT 9.2 User's Guide. Cary, NC, USA.
  28. Seebauer, J. R., G. W. Singletary, P. M. krumpelman, M. L. Ruffo, and F. E. Below. 2010. Relationship of source and sink in determining kernel composition of maize. J. Experimental Botany. 61 : 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp324
  29. Tollenaar, M. 1977. Sink-source relationships during reproductive development in maize. A review. Maydica XXII : 49-75.
  30. Uhart, S. and F. Andrade. 1991. Source-sink relationship in maize grown in a cool-temperate area. Agronomie, EDP Sciences. 11 : 863-875.
  31. Verheul, M. J., C. Picatto, and P. Stamp. 1996. Growth and development of maize seedlings under chilling conditions in the field. Europ. J. Agron. 5 : 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(96)02007-2
  32. White, A. C., A. rogers, M. Rees, and C. P. Osborne. 2016. How can we make plants grow faster? A source-sink perspective on growth rate. J. Experimental Botany. 67 : 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv447
  33. Wu, Y., W. Gong, F. Yang, X. Wang, T. Yong, and W. Yang. 2016. Responses to shade and subsequent recovery of soya bean in maize-soya bean relay strip intercropping. Plant Production Science. 19 : 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2015.1128095
  34. Yuan, L., J. Tang, X. Wang, and C. Li. 2012. QTL analysis of shading sensitive related traits in maize under two shading treatments. PLoS ONE 7:e38696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038696
  35. Meteorological observation data. Retrieved June 26, 2016 from http://www.kma.go.kr/weather/climate/past_cal.jsp.