This article was downloaded by: [University of Northern Colorado]On: 30 September 2014, At: 03:18Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Plant NutritionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpla20

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSES OF YIELD ANDSELECTED NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITIONSTO DROUGHT STRESS IN SUMMER MAIZEGRAINSTi Da Ge a b , Fang Gong Sui b , San'an Nie a , Ning Bo Sun b , He'aiXiao a & Cheng Li Tong aa Key Laboratory for Agro-ecological Processes in SubtropicalRegion , Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, CAS , Hunan, Chinab Resources and Environment College , Chenyang QingdaoAgricultural University , Qingdao City, ChinaPublished online: 18 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Ti Da Ge , Fang Gong Sui , San'an Nie , Ning Bo Sun , He'ai Xiao & Cheng Li Tong(2010) DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSES OF YIELD AND SELECTED NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITIONS TO DROUGHTSTRESS IN SUMMER MAIZE GRAINS, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33:12, 1811-1818

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2010.503829

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33:1811–1818, 2010Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0190-4167 print / 1532-4087 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01904167.2010.503829

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSES OF YIELD AND SELECTED

NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITIONS TO DROUGHT STRESS IN SUMMER

MAIZE GRAINS

Ti Da Ge,1,2 Fang Gong Sui,2 San’an Nie,1 Ning Bo Sun,2 He’ai Xiao,1

and Cheng Li Tong1

1Key Laboratory for Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of SubtropicalAgriculture, CAS, Hunan, China2Resources and Environment College, Chenyang Qingdao Agricultural University, QingdaoCity, China

� Water is a key factor influencing the yield and quality of crops. Thus, a field simulative studywas carried out from 2002 to 2003 in order to assess yield and nutritional composition changesin maize (Zea mays L.) grains at three different soil moisture levels: full-watered (FW), moder-ately stressed (MS), and severely stressed (SS). Our data indicated that SS treatment significantlyincreased nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) contents inmaize grains by 11.9%, 27.8%, 11.1%, 18.4%, and 32.9%, respectively, when compared toFW. However, significant decreases (P < 0.05) in starch, phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) con-tents and yields in maize grains, about 27.9%, 16.5%, 16.7%, and 375.2%, respectively, wereseen at SS treatment as compared to those in the FW treatment. In contrast, crude fat content hada different pattern in response to drought stress as compared to most nutritional compositions inmaize grains. It generally followed the series MS > FW > SS. These results suggested that althoughsome nutritional compositions in maize grains were positively affected by drought stress, the yieldsdecreased significantly.

Keywords: yield, nutritional compositions, drought stress, maize grains

INTRODUCTION

With intensive efforts aimed at curbing the impacts of global climatechange, the occurrence of drought can be controlled in the near future.However, it remains a serious agronomic problem to this day. In fact, it is

Received 2 December 2008; accepted 10 November 2009.Address correspondence to Fang Gong Sui, Resources and Environment College, Qingdao Agricul-

tural University, 700 Changcheng Road, Chenyang of Qingdao City, Shandong Province, 266109, China.E-mail: sjtugtd@gmail.com

1811

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1812 T. D. Ge et al.

one of the most important factors affecting crop yield and nutritional com-position changes (Bai et al., 2006). Maize (Zea mays L.) is a main food sourceand the most important forage crop in China, but limited water resourcesmay seriously handicap its cultivation and production of this agriculturalcrop in Northern China. Understanding the possible responses of maize todrought is therefore critical in developing scientific strategies to effectivelydeal with the aforementioned challenges. Various studies have demonstratedthat drought can adversely affect many aspects of a plant’s growth and physio-logical metabolism, including height, dry matter production, leaf area, grainnumber, grain size, grain yield, photosynthesis, and free radical (Goodmanand Newton, 2005; Adejare and Umebese, 2007; Jeroni et al., 2007; Singhet al., 2008; Wu et al., 2008). While research evaluating maize’s responseto short periods of water stress are abundant (Pandey et al., 2000; Recep,2004; Gubis et al., 2007), research evaluating changes in the characteris-tics of yield and the nutritional compositions of maize grains, in responseto drought stress during the whole maize growing process are scanty. Ourprimary aim was therefore to assess, under a field simulative environment,yield and selected nutritional compositions such as crude fat and starch con-tent and to investigate the concentrations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn)in maize grains, from third-leaf stage to maturity, at different soil droughtstress levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field simulative experiments of summer maize in concreted plots (plotarea 4 m2, depth 1.5 m, concrete isolation around each plot) were carriedout in the summer of 2002 (from 15 June to 4 Oct) and 2003 (from 20 Juneto 8 Oct) at neutral loam, meadow soil (as homogeneous as possible in eachplot), at Qingdao Agricultural University, Shandong province, in NorthernChina. Maize was grown in an area that could be covered by a mobile rainshelter if it rained.

The maize cultivar ‘Nongda-108’ (a primary high-yield cultivar in North-ern China) was subjected to different soil water treatments of 80 ± 5%[full-watered (FW)], 60 ± 5% [moderately stressed (MS)], and 40 ± 5%[severely stressed (SS)] relative water content from the third-leaf stage tomaturity by controlling irrigation. The trial area was covered by a mobileshelter when it rained. The water supply before maize emergence was iden-tical in each plot. Plants were thinned to 21 plants per plot (a population of5.3 plants m−2) about three weeks after emergence. A completely random-ized plot experimental design was used in which each water treatment was inthree replicated plots. The dates and amounts of fertilizer application andfield management were the same for all treatments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Yield and Nutritional Quality in Maize under Drought 1813

The soil water content was measured between 0–120 cm soil depth at 20cm intervals by a neutron probe (503DR, ICT, Concord, CA, USA). Addi-tionally, soil samples were taken between 0–20 cm soil depth and oven driedat 65◦C for water content determination. The probe was calibrated with vol-umetric soil samples. An aluminum access tube was installed to a depth of1.5 m in the central row of each plot. A water meter was used to controlthe irrigation water supply. To maintain the targeted soil water content, theplots were irrigated about every three to seven days. The amount of irrigationwater (W) was calculated according to the following equation:

W = BDA(Wu − W0)

where B = bulk density, D = soil depth, A = area of each plot, Wu = theupper limit of aimed soil water content (the soil relative water content wasconverted to soil weight water content), W0 = actual soil weight water contentbefore irrigation (Bai et al., 2006; Ge et al., 2006).

On harvest dates (4 October, 2002 and 8 October, 2003), 10–15 plantswere harvested in each plot, and 8–10 ears from each plant were separated.After the samples were dried in an oven at 75◦C for 72 h, the grain wasremoved from each ear manually, then counted and weighed. For each plot,100-kernel weight was measured.

The crude fat content was extracted from the oven-dried maize grains us-ing the Soxhlet apparatus and determined gravimetrically (Bao, 2000). Thestarch was analyzed as described in Hendrix (1993). The oven-dried sam-ples were digested with sulfuric acid (H2SO4)/ hydrogen peroxide (H2O2),and N, P, and K concentrations were determined by the steam distilla-tion method (distillation Unit Buchi-339, Buchi, Flawil, Switzerland), themolybo-phospho-andomolybdate method, and a flame photometer (Bao,2000). Mineral macro-elements (Ca, Mg) were extracted with 2M hydrochlo-ric acid (HCl), and micronutrients (Cu, Zn) were extracted with 7M nitricacid (HNO3) and measured by atomic absorption spectrometry (Bao, 2000).The samples were dry-ashed to eliminate the organic matter and then dis-solved to homogeneous acidic solutions. One-way ANOVA with Tukey testswere used to identify treatment differences. Analyses were run using SPSSfor Windows version 14.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yields and contents of crude fat, starch, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, and Znin summer maize grains showed responses to drought stress as describedin Table 1. There were slight decreases (the average near 6.3%) in grainyields at MS treatment in the two years; however, SS declined by 69.2% and81.2% respectively in 2002 and 2003 as compared to the control levels at FW;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

TA

BL

E1

Eff

ects

ofdr

ough

tstr

ess

onyi

eld

and

sele

cted

nut

riti

onal

com

posi

tion

s(s

uch

ascr

ude

fat,

star

ch,N

,P,K

,Ca,

Mg,

Cu,

Zn

)in

sum

mer

mai

zegr

ain

s

Gra

inyi

eld

Cru

defa

tSt

arch

NP

KC

aM

gC

uZ

nYe

arT

reat

men

t(k

g·(4

m2 )

−1)

(gkg

−1)

(gkg

−1)

(gkg

−1)

(gkg

−1)

(gkg

−1)

(µg

g−1 )

(µg

g−1 )

(µg

g−1 )

(µg

g−1 )

2002

FW∗

3.41

a47

.6b

568a

13.7

b8.

9a4.

6a73

.8c

617.

4c4.

7c26

.7c

MS

3.16

a53

.3a

518

b15

.1a

8.0b

4.1a

86.4

b68

1.7b

5.4b

30.5

bSS

1.05

b40

.6c

438

c15

.9a

7.3c

3.9b

97.1

a69

4.1a

5.7a

36.8

a20

03FW

2.82

a40

.4b

714

a14

.1b

8.7a

4.4a

82.1

c64

5.8b

4.5c

21.5

cM

S2.

67a

43.8

a65

8b

14.9

a7.

6b4.

2a85

.7b

685.

2b4.

9b24

.1b

SS0.

53b

36.2

c47

9c

15. 2

a7.

4b3.

6b10

1.8a

709.

2a5.

2a27

.5a

∗ FW

=fu

llw

ater

supp

ly(c

ontr

ol,t

he

soil

rela

tive

wat

erco

nte

nt

is80

%±

5%),

MS

=m

oder

atel

yst

ress

ed(t

he

soil

rela

tive

wat

erco

nte

nt

is60

%±

5%),

and

SS=

seve

rely

stre

ssed

(th

eso

ilre

lati

vew

ater

con

ten

tis4

0%±

5%).

Th

ere

sult

s,ba

sed

onon

e-w

ayA

NO

VA

wit

hT

ukey

test

s,sh

owth

atth

esm

alll

ette

rsre

pres

ent

sign

ifica

nce

at0.

05le

vel.

Th

esa

me

lett

ers

show

non

-sig

nifi

can

tdif

fere

nce

,an

ddi

ffer

entl

ette

rssh

owsi

gnifi

can

ceat

0.05

leve

l.

1814

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Yield and Nutritional Quality in Maize under Drought 1815

further, significant difference in grain yield was observed between FW andSS treatments (P < 0.05). Similarly, Pervez et al. (2004) also reported thathybrid progeny from drought-tolerant populations yielded up to 31.8–42.4%under drought as compared to the yield without stress. Moreover, Recep(2004) found that grain yield losses of 66–93% should be expected as aresult of prolonged water stress during tasselling and ear formation stages.Yield reduction in maize due to drought stress depends on numerous factors,such as the stage of plant development, the severity and duration of the waterdeficiency, the susceptibility of the hybrids, as well as the vulnerability to soildrought (Frederick et al., 1990).

ANOVA revealed that drought stress significantly impacted crude fatcontents in maize grains (P < 0.05) in 2002 and 2003. It followed the generalseries MS > FW > SS (Table 1). It should be noted that limited soil drought,such as MS, improves crude fat content in maize grains, whereas excessdrought, such as SS, significantly reduces it.

Starch represents nearly 70% of the dry weight of the mature maizekernels and is the most economically important component, with the mostpotential use, to the food industry (Ji et al., 2003). As seen in Table 1,decreases in the starch content of maize kernels caused by MS and SS treat-ments ranged from 7.8% to 32.9% in both test years as compared to the FWtreatment, and significant (P < 0.05) differences were observed among thedifferent water treatments. This suggested that soil drought would possiblyproduce qualitative and/or quantitative differences in developing kernelcarbohydrate metabolism, as well as endosperm changes in the maize, lead-ing to a deficiency in starch synthesis.

As described in Table 1, drought stress significantly (P < 0.05) influ-enced the content of mineral elements (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn) in summermaize grains. N, Ca, Mg, Cu, and Zn contents in grains followed the patternSS > MS > FW. In contrast, the pattern of P, K was significantly differentand followed the series FW > MS > SS. For example, the increases in the Ncontent in maize kernels caused by MS and SS treatments were significantand ranged from 5.7% to 16.1% as compared to those of the FW treatment,whereas decreases in both P and K contents caused by MS and SS treatmentswere observed. Our data on N contents are in agreement with previous find-ings that indicate that a slightly higher nutritive value of drought stressedmaize silage versus normal maize silage, and elevated protein values due toenvironmental stress (Cross et al., 1994; Lilburn et al., 1991). The high Nconcentration is likely due to the reduction of starch content in maize grains.It is clear that carbon (C) and N are interrelated in kernel development, asindicated by the inverse relationship between the concentration of starchand N content in the endosperm (Faleiros et al., 1996). In addition, thisfinding (Table 1) on the decrease of P and K contents in maize kernels attwo water stress treatments when compared to FW may be explained with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1816 T. D. Ge et al.

evidence that P uptake in plants was a result of a positive relationship withsoil water content (Strong and Barry, 1980), and the availability of potas-sium (K) grew significantly with the increase of soil water content (Mengeland von Braunschweig, 1972). These results demonstrated that soil droughtleads to the enhancement of N content in maize kernels but adversely af-fects P and K contents in maize grains. Moreover, P content was affectedseverely at both MS and SS, and was not dependent on the intensity ofdrought; K content slightly decreases at MS, but a significantly decreased atSS. Thus, P content in maize grains was found to be more sensitive to soildrought.

Clearly, soil drought resulted in a high accumulation of mineral ele-ments in maize grains (Table 1), and comparison among the element con-centrations in response to drought stress showed that the increases in Znconcentration were at the maximum values at both MS and SS treatments,whereas the values of enhanced Mn content were at the lowest levels at MSand SS. The mineral elements data is similar to the results of mineral el-ements in aborted maize kernels, and are similar to, or even higher than,those in normal kernels reported by Mozafar (1990). Mineral element con-centrations in maize kernels vary considerably according to the part of theplant as well as to the chemical characteristics of the elements. The consid-erable differences in element concentrations of maize grains at three soilwater levels suggest that different relationships with the soil water environ-ment for different uptake routes and different transport mechanisms of fivemineral elements exist. Likely, soil drought stress improved uptake routesand/or transport mechanisms in Zn, Ca, Cu, Mg, and Mn elements, to someextent.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, most nutritional compositions of maize grains, such asN content and Ca, Mg, Cu, and Zn, were positively affected by soil droughtstress. Moreover, these enhanced nutritional values depended on the in-tensity of the drought; the more severe the soil drought stress, the greaterthe loss in nutritional content in maize grains. However, yields and somenutritional compositions in maize grains were adversely affected by elevateddrought stress. Similarly, these reduced nutritional values also dependedon the intensity of the drought; the more severe the soil drought stress,the greater the loss in nutritional contents. In contrast, crude fat contentshowed a different pattern in response to soil drought stress. Since the fac-tors regulating and influencing the nutritional quality of maize grains iscomplex, long-term studies are needed to confirm these results and their in-teraction with other environmental factors and agronomic practices, namely

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Yield and Nutritional Quality in Maize under Drought 1817

mineral nutrition and irrigation, and the interaction between abovegroundand belowground parts, namely shoots and roots.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by National Key Basic Research SpecificFoundation (G1999043407) and National Natural Science Foundation ofChina (40231018, 49905005, and 40231018).

REFERENCES

Adejare, F. B., and C. E. Umebese. 2007. Effect of water stress at different stages of growth on stomatacomplex, tolerance and yield of two cultivars of Glycine max L. Merril. South African Journal of Botany73: 323–323.

Bai, L. P., F. G. Sui, T. D.Ge, Z. H. Sun, Y. Y. Lu, and G. S. Zhou. 2006. Effect of soil drought stress onleaf water status, membrane permeability and enzymatic antioxidant system of maize. Pedosphere 16:326–332.

Bao, S. D. 2000. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis. Beijing: Agricultural Press.Cross, D. L., W. J. Caldwell, and J. R. Strickland. 1994. Efficacy of drought-stressed whole corn plants as a

feed for ruminants II: Effect on digestibility and performance of ruminants consuming whole cornplant. International Journal of Animal Sciences 9: 317–324.

Faleiros, R. R. S., J. R. Seebauer, and F. E. Below. 1996. Nutritionally induced changes in endosperm ofshrunken-1 and brittle-2 maize kernels grown in vitro. Crop Science Society of America 36: 947–954.

Frederick, J. R., E. F. Frederick, and J. D. Hesketh. 1990. Carbohydrate, nitrogen and dry matter accu-mulation and partitioning of maize hybrids under drought stress. Annals of Botany 66: 407–415.

Ge, T. D., F. G. Sui, L. P. Bai, Y. Y. Lu, and G. S. Zhou. 2006. Effects of water stress on the protectiveenzyme activities and lipid peroxidation in roots and leaves of summer maize. Agricultural Sciencesin China 5: 291–298.

Goodman, B. A., and A. C. Newton. 2005. Effects of drought stress and its sudden relief on free radicalprocesses in barley. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85: 47–53.

Gubis, J., R. Vankova, V. Cervena, M. Dragunova, M. Hudcovicova, H. Lichtnerova, T. Dokupil, andZ. Jurekova. 2007. Transformed tobacco plants with increased tolerance to drought. South AfricanJournal of Botany 73: 505–511.

Hendrix, D. L. 1993. Rapid extraction and analysis of nonstructural carbohydrates in plant tissues. CropScience 33: 1306–1311.

Jeroni, G., A. Anunciacion, M. Hipolito, and F. Jaume. 2007. Photosynthesis and photoprotection re-sponses to water stress in the wild-extinct plant Lysimachia minoricensis. Environmental and ExperimentalBotany 60: 308–317.

Ji, Y., K. Wong, J. Hasjim, L. M. Pollak, S. Duvick, J. Jane, and P. J. White. 2003. Structure and functionof starch from advanced generations of new corn lines. Carbohydrate Polymers 54: 305–319.

Lilburn, M. S., E. M. Ngidi, N. E. Ward, and C. Llames. 1991. The influence of severe drought on selectednutritional characteristics of commercial corn hybrids. Poultry science 70: 2329–2334.

Mengel, K., and L. C. von Braunschweig. 1972. The effect of soil moisture upon the availability ofpotassium and its influence on the growth of young maize plants (Zea Mays L.). Soil Science 114:142–148.

Mozafar, A. 1990. Kernel abortion and distribution of mineral elements along the maize ear. AmericanSociety of Agronomy 82: 511–514.

Pandey, R. K., J. W. Maranville, and M. M. Chetima. 2000. Deficit irrigation and nitrogen effects on maizein a Sahelian environment: II. Shoot growth, nitrogen uptake and water extraction. AgriculturalWater Manage 46: 15–27.

Pervez, H. Z., G. Srinivasan, H. S. Cordova, and C. Sanchez. 2004. Gains from improvement for mid-seasondrought tolerance in tropical maize (Zea mays L.). Field Crops Research 89: 135–152.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1818 T. D. Ge et al.

Recep, C. 2004. Effect of water stress at different development stages on vegetative and reproductivegrowth of corn. Field Crop Research 89:1–16.

Singh, S., G. Singh, P. Singh, and N. Singh. 2008. Effect of water stress at different stages of graindevelopment on the characteristics of starch and protein of different wheat varieties. Food Chemistry108: 130–139.

Strong, W. M., and G. Barry. 1980. The availability of soil and fertilizer phosphorus to wheat and rape atdifferent water regimes. Australian Journal of Soil Research 18: 353–362.

Wu F., W. Bao, F. Li, and N. Wu. 2008. Effects of drought stress and N supply on the growth, biomasspartitioning and water-use efficiency of Sophora davidii seedlings. Environmental and ExperimentalBotany 63: 248–255.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 03:

18 3

0 Se

ptem

ber

2014