Physiological mechanisms in plant growth models: do we need a supra-cellular systems biology approach?

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 1673-1690 ◽  
Author(s):  
HENDRIK POORTER ◽  
NIELS P. R. ANTEN ◽  
LEO F. M. MARCELIS
Placenta ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 10-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances T.M. Wong ◽  
Chenchia Lin ◽  
Brian J. Cox

1978 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. V. RAGHAVAN ◽  
E. McKYES ◽  
G. GENDRON ◽  
B. BORGLUM ◽  
H. H. LE

A 100-plot experiment was performed during the growing season of 1976 in a Ste. Rosalie clay soil, using a randomized complete-block design with 25 treatments of machinery traffic within each of four blocks. Three vehicle contact pressures, four numbers of tractor passes, before or after seeding groups and a control of zero traffic were used to relate the growth and yield variables to wheel traffic and resulting soil compaction. Plant emergence and tasselling were delayed with increasing machinery traffic. The plant growth rate monitored at 29, 44, 60, 74 and 88 days from the seeding time was dramatically different from plot to plot. Growth models at different times of the season were derived in terms of the product of contact pressure and number of passes of the vehicle. Plant and ear moisture contents were higher in plots with heavier traffic treatment. Yield, ear yield and grain yield all decreased with increases in machine contact pressure and passes. The reduction in yield was over 50% in some cases, suggesting that careful traffic planning is essential to obtain better production in agricultural fields. Prediction models were obtained for all the plant growth characteristics in terms of traffic variables for both before- and after-seeding treatments. A relation for yield in terms of soil bulk density was established.


2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 838-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Giuliano ◽  
Daniel Premkumar ◽  
Christopher Strock ◽  
Patricia Johnston ◽  
D. Taylor

Ecosystems ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Moen ◽  
Yosef Cohen ◽  
John Pastor

Author(s):  
Abu Sayeed Md. Hasibuzzaman ◽  
Farzana Akter ◽  
Shamim Ara Bagum ◽  
Nilima Hossain ◽  
Tahmina Akter ◽  
...  

Maize is one of the mostly consumed grains in the world. It possesses a greater potentiality of being an alternative to rice and wheat in the near future. In field condition, maize encounters abiotic stresses like salinity, drought, water logging, cold, heat, etc. Physiology and production of maize are largely affected by drought. Drought has become a prime cause of agricultural disaster because of the major occurrence records of the last few decades. It leads to immense losses in plant growth (plant height and stem), water relations (relative water content), gas exchange (photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate), and nutrient levels in maize. To mitigate the effect of stress, plant retreats by using multiple morphological, molecular, and physiological mechanisms. Maize alters its physiological processes like photosynthesis, oxidoreductase activities, carbohydrate metabolism, nutrient metabolism, and other drought-responsive pathways in response to drought. Synthesis of some chemicals like proline, abscisic acid (ABA), different phenolic compounds, etc. helps to fight against stress. Inoculation of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can result to the gene expression involved in the biosynthesis of abscisic acid which also helps to resist drought. Moreover, adaptation to drought and heat stress is positively influenced by the activity of chaperone proteins and proteases, protein that responds to ethylene and ripening. Some modifications generated by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-Cas9 are able to improve maize yield in drought. Forward and reverse genetics and functional and comparative genomics are being implemented now to overcome stress conditions like drought. Maize response to drought is a multifarious physiological and biochemical process. Applying data synthesis approach, this study aims toward better demonstration of its consequences to provide critical information on maize tolerance along with minimizing yield loss.


2014 ◽  
Vol 290 ◽  
pp. 11-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Baey ◽  
Anne Didier ◽  
Sébastien Lemaire ◽  
Fabienne Maupas ◽  
Paul-Henry Cournède

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document