Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (7,142)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = maize

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
21 pages, 1675 KiB  
Article
Differences in Accumulation of Rare Earth Elements by Plants Cultivated in Soil and Substrates from Industrial Waste Materials
by Dominika Gmur, Grzegorz Siebielec and Monika Pecio
Plants 2025, 14(4), 589; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14040589 - 14 Feb 2025
Abstract
The aim of this experiment was to investigate the differences in the uptake and accumulation of rare earth elements (REEs) between selected plant species and the substrates used (soil with increased REE content, ash, and smelter waste). Eight plant species were included in [...] Read more.
The aim of this experiment was to investigate the differences in the uptake and accumulation of rare earth elements (REEs) between selected plant species and the substrates used (soil with increased REE content, ash, and smelter waste). Eight plant species were included in the study: common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), false mayweed (Triplerosperum maritimum), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), marigold (Tagetes sp.), maize (Zea mays), white mustard (Sinapis alba), red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), and autumn fern (Dryopteris erythrosora). The study focused on the following REE representatives: lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), europium (Eu), and gadolinium (Gd). Plant samples, divided into roots and shoots, were analyzed by ICP-MS. The obtained REE concentrations in plant tissues ranged from 9 to 697 µg kg−1 (La), 10 to 1518 µg kg−1 (Ce), 9 to 69 µg kg−1 (Eu), and 9 to 189 µg kg−1 (Gd). To determine the ability of plants to phytoextract REE, two factors were calculated: the translocation factor (TF) and the bioconcentration factor (BCF). The highest TF value was obtained for D. erythrosora growing on a substrate consisting of soil with increased REE content (Gd, TF = 4.03). Additionally, TF > 1 was obtained for all REEs in T. pratense L. In the experiment, the BCF was lower than 1 for all the plants tested. The study provided insight into the varying ability of plants to accumulate REEs, depending on both the plant species and the chemical properties of the substrate. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Rare Earth Elements in Plants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The total biomass production (g pot<sup>−1</sup>, dw, mean± SD, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3) of 1—<span class="html-italic">Achillea millefolium</span>, 2—<span class="html-italic">Trifolium pratense</span> L., 3—<span class="html-italic">Festuca arundinacea</span>, 4—<span class="html-italic">Sinapis alba</span>, 5—<span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>, 6—<span class="html-italic">Tagetes</span> sp., 7—<span class="html-italic">Tripleurospermum maritimum</span>, 8—<span class="html-italic">Dryopteris erythrosora</span> across four substrates: substrate 1 (95% soil, 5% compost), substrate 2 (30% paper industry ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), substrate 3 (30% power plant ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), substrate 4 (40% smelter waste, 20% compost, 40% peat). Values marked with different letters (a, b, c, etc.) for each element in relation to plant species and substrate variants are significantly different at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD test (ANOVA).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Concentrations of La, Ce, Eu, and Gd in shoots of <span class="html-italic">Achillea millefolium</span>, <span class="html-italic">Trifolium pratense</span> L., <span class="html-italic">Festuca arundinacea</span>, <span class="html-italic">Sinapis alba</span>, <span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>, <span class="html-italic">Tagetes</span> sp., <span class="html-italic">Tripleurospermum maritimum</span>, <span class="html-italic">Dryopteris erythrosora</span> across four substrates (µg kg<sup>−1</sup>, mean± SD, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). The substrates that were used are as follows: substrate 1 (95% soil, 5% compost), substrate 2 (30% paper industry ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), substrate 3 (30% power plant ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), and substrate 4 (40% smelter waste, 20% compost, 40% peat). Values marked with different letters (a, b, c, etc.) for each element in relation to plant species and substrate variants are significantly different at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD test (ANOVA). Blank fields indicate results below the detection limit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Concentrations of La, Ce, Eu, and Gd in shoots of <span class="html-italic">Achillea millefolium</span>, <span class="html-italic">Trifolium pratense</span> L., <span class="html-italic">Festuca arundinacea</span>, <span class="html-italic">Sinapis alba</span>, <span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>, <span class="html-italic">Tagetes</span> sp., <span class="html-italic">Tripleurospermum maritimum</span>, <span class="html-italic">Dryopteris erythrosora</span> across four substrates (µg kg<sup>−1</sup>, mean± SD, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). The substrates that were used are as follows: substrate 1 (95% soil, 5% compost), substrate 2 (30% paper industry ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), substrate 3 (30% power plant ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), and substrate 4 (40% smelter waste, 20% compost, 40% peat). Values marked with different letters (a, b, c, etc.) for each element in relation to plant species and substrate variants are significantly different at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD test (ANOVA). Blank fields indicate results below the detection limit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Concentrations of La, Ce, Eu, and Gd in roots of <span class="html-italic">Achillea millefolium</span>, <span class="html-italic">Trifolium pratense</span> L., <span class="html-italic">Festuca arundinacea</span>, <span class="html-italic">Sinapis alba</span>, <span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>, <span class="html-italic">Tagetes</span> sp., <span class="html-italic">Tripleurospermum maritimum</span>, and <span class="html-italic">Dryopteris erythrosora</span> across four substrates (µg kg<sup>−1</sup>, mean± SD, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). The substrates that were used are as follows: substrate 1 (95% soil, 5% compost), substrate 2 (30% paper industry ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), substrate 3 (30% power plant ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), and substrate 4 (40% smelter waste, 20% compost, 40% peat). Values marked with different letters (a, b, c, etc.) for each element in relation to plant species and substrate variants are significantly different at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD test (ANOVA). Blank fields indicate results below the detection limit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3 Cont.
<p>Concentrations of La, Ce, Eu, and Gd in roots of <span class="html-italic">Achillea millefolium</span>, <span class="html-italic">Trifolium pratense</span> L., <span class="html-italic">Festuca arundinacea</span>, <span class="html-italic">Sinapis alba</span>, <span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>, <span class="html-italic">Tagetes</span> sp., <span class="html-italic">Tripleurospermum maritimum</span>, and <span class="html-italic">Dryopteris erythrosora</span> across four substrates (µg kg<sup>−1</sup>, mean± SD, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). The substrates that were used are as follows: substrate 1 (95% soil, 5% compost), substrate 2 (30% paper industry ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), substrate 3 (30% power plant ash, 20% compost, 50% peat), and substrate 4 (40% smelter waste, 20% compost, 40% peat). Values marked with different letters (a, b, c, etc.) for each element in relation to plant species and substrate variants are significantly different at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD test (ANOVA). Blank fields indicate results below the detection limit.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 4691 KiB  
Article
Nitrogen Availability Level Controlling the Translocation and Stabilization of Maize Residue Nitrogen in Soil Matrix
by Shuzhe Liu, Sicong Ma, Fangbo Deng, Feng Zhou, Xiaona Liang, Lei Yuan, Huijie Lü, Xueli Ding, Hongbo He and Xudong Zhang
Agriculture 2025, 15(4), 403; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15040403 - 14 Feb 2025
Abstract
Crop residue returning to field inputs considerable nitrogen (N) into soils, which greatly influences the function and sustainability of the agricultural system. However, little is known about the transformation and physical stabilization of maize residue-derived N in soil matrix in response to changing [...] Read more.
Crop residue returning to field inputs considerable nitrogen (N) into soils, which greatly influences the function and sustainability of the agricultural system. However, little is known about the transformation and physical stabilization of maize residue-derived N in soil matrix in response to changing N availability. To explore the distinct regulation of organo-mineral complexes on maize residue N translocation, a 38-week microcosm incubation was carried out amended with 15N-labeled maize residue in a Mollisols sampled from Gonghzuling, Northeast of China. Unlabeled inorganic N was added at different levels (0, 60.3 mg N kg−1 soil (low level), 167 mg N kg−1 soil (medium level), and 702 mg N kg−1 soil (high level)). 15N enrichment in bulk soil and the separated particle size fractions were determined periodically in the bulk soils and the subsamples were analyzed. At the early stage of the incubation, the maize residue N concentration declined significantly in the sand fraction and increased in the silt and clay fractions. Temporally, the 15N enrichment in the silt fraction changed slightly after 4 weeks but that in the clay fraction increased continuously until the 18th week. These results indicated that the decomposing process controlled maize residue N translocation hierarchically from coarser into finer fractions. From the aspect of functional differentiation, the pass-in of the maize residue N into the silt fraction was apt to be balanced by the pass-out, while the absorption of clay particles was essential for the stabilization of the decomposed maize residue N. The inorganic N level critically controlled both the decomposition and translocation of maize residue in soil. High and medium inorganic N addition facilitated maize residue N decomposition compared to the low-level N addition. Furthermore, medium N availability is more favorable for maize residue N transportation and stabilization in the clay fraction. Comparatively, high-level inorganic N supply could possibly impede the interaction of maize residue N and clay minerals due to the competition of ammonium sorption/fixation on the active site of clay. This research highlighted the functional coupling of organic–inorganic N during soil N accumulation and stabilization, and such findings could present a theoretical perspective on optimal management of crop residue resources and chemical fertilizers in field practices. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Soils)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Concentration of organic C in bulk soil. N<sub>0</sub>, maize residue added alone (100 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil); N<sub>l</sub>, 60.3 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>m</sub>, 167.2 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>h</sub>, 701.9 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue. Symbols and bars represent the mean values and standard errors (n = 3), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Concentration of total N in bulk soil and different particle size fractions ((<b>a</b>), bulk soil; (<b>b</b>), sand fraction; (<b>c</b>), silt fraction; (<b>d</b>), clay fraction). N<sub>0</sub>, maize residue added alone (100 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil); N<sub>l</sub>, 60.3 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>m</sub>, 167.2 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>h</sub>, 701.9 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue. Symbols and bars represent the mean value and standard error (n = 3), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Concentration of maize residue N in bulk soil and different particle size fractions ((<b>a</b>)<b>,</b> bulk soil; (<b>b</b>), sand fraction; (<b>c</b>), silt fraction; (<b>d</b>), clay fraction). N<sub>0</sub>, maize residue added alone (100 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil); N<sub>l</sub>, 60.3 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>m</sub>, 167.2 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>h</sub>, 701.9 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue. Symbols and bars represent the mean value and standard error (n = 3), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Contribution of maize residue N to total N in bulk soil and different particle size fractions ((<b>a</b>), bulk soil; (<b>b</b>), sand fraction; (<b>c</b>), silt fraction; (<b>d</b>), clay fraction). N<sub>0</sub>, maize residue added alone (100 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil); N<sub>l</sub>, 60.3 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>m</sub>, 167.2 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>h</sub>, 701.9 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue. Symbols and bars represent the mean values and standard errors (n = 3), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Enrichment factors of total N (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) and maize residue N (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) in different particle size fractions. N<sub>0</sub>, maize residue added alone (100 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil); N<sub>l</sub>, 60.3 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>m</sub>, 167.2 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>h</sub>, 701.9 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue. Symbols and bars represent the mean value and standard error (n = 3), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relative distribution of total N (<b>a</b>) and maize residue N (<b>b</b>) in different particle size fractions. N<sub>0</sub>, maize residue added alone (100 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil); N<sub>l</sub>, 60.3 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>m</sub>, 167.2 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue; N<sub>h</sub>, 701.9 mg N kg<sup>−1</sup> soil + maize residue. Columns and bars represent the mean value and standard error (n = 3), respectively.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 5186 KiB  
Article
Assessing the Transferability of Models for Predicting Foliar Nutrient Concentrations Across Maize Cultivars
by Jian Shen, Yurong Huang, Wenqian Chen, Mengjun Li, Wei Tan, Ronghui Wang, Yujia Deng, Yingting Gong, Shaoying Ai and Nanfeng Liu
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(4), 652; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040652 - 14 Feb 2025
Abstract
Fresh sweet and waxy maize (Zea mays) are valuable specialty crops in southern China. Hyperspectral remote sensing offers a powerful tool for detecting maize foliar nutrients non-destructively. This study aims to investigate the capability of leaf spectroscopy (SVC HR-1024i spectrometer, wavelength [...] Read more.
Fresh sweet and waxy maize (Zea mays) are valuable specialty crops in southern China. Hyperspectral remote sensing offers a powerful tool for detecting maize foliar nutrients non-destructively. This study aims to investigate the capability of leaf spectroscopy (SVC HR-1024i spectrometer, wavelength range: 400–2500 nm) to retrieve maize foliar nutrients. Specifically, we (1) explored the effects of nitrogen application rates (0, 150, 225, 300, and 450 kg·N·ha−1), maize cultivars (GLT-27 and TGN-932), and growth stages (third leaf (vegetation V3), stem elongation stage (vegetation V6), silking stage (reproductive R2), and milk stage (reproductive R3)) on foliar nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon) and leaf spectra; (2) evaluated the transferability of the regression and physical models in retrieving foliar nutrients across maize cultivars. We found that the PLSR (partial least squares regression), SVR (support vector machine regression), and RFR (random forest regression) regression model accuracies were fair within a specific cultivar, with the highest R2 of 0.60 and the lowest NRMSE (normalized RMSE = RMSE/(Max − Min)) of 17% for nitrogen, R2 of 0.19 and NRMSE of 21% for phosphorous, and R2 of 0.45 and NRMSE of 19% for carbon. However, when these cultivar-specific models were used to predict foliar nitrogen across cultivars, lower R2 and higher NRMSE values were observed. For the physical model, which does not rely on the dataset, the R2 and NRMSE for foliar chlorophyll-a and -b (Cab), carotenoid (Cxc), and equivalent water thickness (EWT) were 0.76 and 15%, 0.67 and 34%, and 0.47 and 21%, respectively. However, the prediction accuracy for foliar nitrogen, expressed as foliar protein in PROSPECT-PRO, was lower, with an R2 of 0.22 and NRMSE of 27%, which was comparable to that of the regression models. The primary reasons for this limited transferability were attributed to (1) the insufficient number of samples and (2) the lack of strong absorption features for foliar nutrients within the 400–2500 nm wavelength range and the confounding effects of other foliar biochemicals with strong absorption features. Future efforts are needed to investigate the physical mechanisms underlying hyperspectral remote sensing of foliar nutrients and incorporate transfer learning techniques into foliar nutrient models. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancements in Remote Sensing for Sustainable Agriculture)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Differences in leaf nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and carbon (C) concentrations under varying N treatments (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) and between different cultivars (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) at various growth stages. The <span class="html-italic">p</span>-values from the three-way ANOVA are displayed in (<b>g</b>), where “***” indicates <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001, “**” indicates <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, and “NS” denotes no significant difference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Comparison of average leaf spectral reflectance among five nitrogen application rates (N<sub>0</sub> = 0, N<sub>1</sub> = 150, N<sub>1.5</sub> = 225, N<sub>2</sub> = 300, and N<sub>3</sub> = 450 kg·ha<sup>−1</sup>), two maize cultivars (GLT-27 and TGN-932), and four sampling dates (2 October 2023: V3 stage; 24 October 2023: V6 stage; 8 November 2023: R1 stage; 17 November 2023: R3 stage).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Band importance derived from three regression models for foliar nitrogen. PLSR: partial least square regression; SVR: support vector regression; RFR: random forest regression. Dash lines indicate the absorption features of nitrogen (1020, 1510, 1980, 2060, 2130, 2180, and 2300 nm) adopted from Curran [<a href="#B38-remotesensing-17-00652" class="html-bibr">38</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Band importance derived from three regression models for foliar phosphorus. PLSR: partial least square regression; SVR: support vector regression; RFR: random forest regression. Dash lines indicate the absorption features of nitrogen (1020, 1510, 1980, 2060, 2130, 2180, and 2300 nm) or carbon (910, 930, 1040, 1120, 1420, 1450, 1690, 1780, 1820, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2180, 2240, 2270, 2280, 2300, 2310, 2320, 2340, and 2350 nm) adopted from Curran [<a href="#B38-remotesensing-17-00652" class="html-bibr">38</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Band importance derived from three regression models for foliar carbon. PLSR: partial least square regression; SVR: support vector regression; RFR: random forest regression. Dash lines indicate the absorption features of carbon (910, 930, 1040, 1120, 1420, 1450, 1690, 1780, 1820, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2180, 2240, 2270, 2280, 2300, 2310, 2320, 2340, and 2350 nm) adopted from Curran [<a href="#B38-remotesensing-17-00652" class="html-bibr">38</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The inversion results of the physically based approach. C<sub>ab</sub>: chlorophyll-a and -b; C<sub>xc</sub>: carotenoid; EWT: equivalent water thickness; Protein = 4.13 × Nitrogen.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The distribution of the first two latent variables (LV1–2) in the partial least squares regression (PLSR) models for predicting foliar nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 6719 KiB  
Article
Host Specificity of the Bioherbicidal Fungal Strain Paramyrothecium eichhorniae TBRC10637 for Control of Water Hyacinth
by Tanyapon Siriphan, Arm Unartngam, Wachiraya Imsabai, Piyangkun Lueangjaroenkit, Chatchai Kosawang, Hans Jørgen Lyngs Jørgensen and Jintana Unartngam
Biology 2025, 14(2), 199; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14020199 - 14 Feb 2025
Abstract
Paramyrothecium eichhorniae TBRC10637 has been reported as a potential biocontrol agent of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Thailand. Despite its great potential, it remained unclear whether the strain may cause disease in other plant species, especially those sharing the same niche [...] Read more.
Paramyrothecium eichhorniae TBRC10637 has been reported as a potential biocontrol agent of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Thailand. Despite its great potential, it remained unclear whether the strain may cause disease in other plant species, especially those sharing the same niche as water hyacinth. Here, we examined the strain for its specificity and pathogenicity on 55 plant species from 26 families ranging from crop plants to aquatic weeds. We showed that, except for water hyacinth, P. eichhorniae TBRC10637 did not cause leaf spot or leaf blight or on any of the tested plants. Scanning electron microscopy of spores inoculated on eight plant species, including economically important plants such as maize (Zea mays) and chilli (Capsicum annuum) at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h after inoculation, showed no spore germination, except on water hyacinth. Inoculation with spore-free culture washing led to blight symptoms on leaves of water hyacinth 72 h after inoculation, suggesting that enzymes and secondary metabolites may be involved in causing the blight symptoms. Our results confirmed high specificity of P. eichhorniae TBRC10637 towards water hyacinth, paving the way to control the spread of water hyacinth effectively. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Science)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Appearances of leaves inoculated with <span class="html-italic">P. eichhorniae</span> TBRC10637 at 14 DAI: (<b>a</b>) water hyacinth (<span class="html-italic">Eichhornia crassipes</span>), (<b>b</b>) paracress (<span class="html-italic">Acmella oleracea</span>), (<b>c</b>) Dutchman’s pipe (<span class="html-italic">Aristolochia ringens</span>), (<b>d</b>) Indian trumpet tree (<span class="html-italic">Oroxylum indicum</span>), (<b>e</b>) winged bean (<span class="html-italic">Psophocarpus tetragonolobus</span>), and (<b>f</b>) butterfly pea (<span class="html-italic">Centrosema</span> sp.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Scanning electron micrographs of germination of <span class="html-italic">Paramyrothecium eichhorniae</span> TBRC10637 spores on leaves of water hyacinth (<span class="html-italic">Eichhornia crassipes</span>) and non-host plants, i.e., yard-long bean (<span class="html-italic">Vigna unguiculata</span> ssp. <span class="html-italic">sesquipedalis</span>), heartleaf pickerel (<span class="html-italic">Pontederia cordata</span>), and maize (<span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>) at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h after inoculation (HAI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Appearance of symptoms after treatment with paper discs saturated with spore-free culture washing at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h after inoculation (HAI) on water hyacinth (<span class="html-italic">Eichhornia crassipes</span>) and non-host leaves, i.e., yard-long bean (<span class="html-italic">Vigna unguiculata</span> ssp. <span class="html-italic">sesquipedalis</span>), heartleaf pickerel (<span class="html-italic">Pontederia cordata</span>), and maize (<span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Microscopic structure of water hyacinth leaf cells after treatment with spore-free culture washing at (<b>a</b>) 0, (<b>b</b>) 24, (<b>c</b>) 48, and (<b>d</b>) 72 h after inoculation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Phylogenetic relationships of <span class="html-italic">Paramyrothecium</span> spp. from concatenated nucleotide sequences of ITS rDNA, <span class="html-italic">tub2</span>, <span class="html-italic">cmdA</span>, and <span class="html-italic">rpb</span>2 analyses. <span class="html-italic">Paramyrothecium eichhorniae</span> TBRC10637 was placed. The bootstrap values (1000 replications) and Bayesian posterior probabilities over 50% and 0.90 were shown on the left of the nodes, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 11275 KiB  
Article
Facilitating Maize Seed Germination Under Heat Stress via Exogenous Melatonin
by Congcong Chen, Dongxiao Li, Yujie Yan, Congpei Yin, Zhaojin Shi, Yuechen Zhang and Peijun Tao
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(4), 1608; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26041608 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Seed germination is a critical phase during which plants are particularly sensitive to environmental stresses, especially heat stress, due to the high metabolic and physiological activities required for initial growth. Melatonin (MT), a key antioxidant, is crucial for assisting plants in managing abiotic [...] Read more.
Seed germination is a critical phase during which plants are particularly sensitive to environmental stresses, especially heat stress, due to the high metabolic and physiological activities required for initial growth. Melatonin (MT), a key antioxidant, is crucial for assisting plants in managing abiotic stresses. While the impact of melatonin on heat stress has been explored in other developmental stages or species, this is the first study to specifically focus on its role during maize seed germination under heat stress. The treatment with 50 μM melatonin significantly enhanced seed germination under heat stress by improving antioxidant capacity, osmotic regulation, and hydrolytic enzyme activity, likely through the modulation of key signaling pathways, thus reducing oxidative damage and starch content. Furthermore, melatonin application promoted the accumulation of endogenous gibberellins (GAs) and significantly inhibited abscisic acid (ABA) content, thereby maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between these phytohormones. Principal component analysis and correlation analysis provided deeper insights into the overall effects of these physiological and biochemical parameters. Integrated transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis revealed that melatonin exerted its regulatory effects by modulating key genes and pathways associated with antioxidant defense, stress responses, and plant hormone signal transduction. Furthermore, melatonin significantly modulated the GA and ABA signaling pathways, starch and sucrose metabolism, and phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, thereby reducing oxidative damage induced by heat stress and strengthening the defense mechanisms of maize seeds. The alignment between the qRT-PCR findings and transcriptomic data further validated the robustness of these underlying mechanisms. In conclusion, this study provides novel insights into the role of melatonin in enhancing maize seed germination under heat stress and offers a promising strategy for improving crop heat tolerance through melatonin application in agricultural practices. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular Plant Sciences)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Effects of melatonin on maize seed germination under HS. (<b>a</b>) Germination rate. (<b>b</b>) Germination vigor. (<b>c</b>) Germination index. (<b>d</b>) Seed vitality. The letters on the bar chart represent different levels of significance, with <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Effects of melatonin on maize seed morphology under HT. (<b>a</b>) Phenotypic analysis of seeds after 12, 24, 48, and 72 h under HS and HMT treatments. (<b>b</b>) Plumule length and radicle length. The letters on the bar chart represent different levels of significance, with <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Effects of melatonin treatment on antioxidant enzyme activity, osmotic regulators, and peroxide products under HS. (<b>a</b>) SOD activity. (<b>b</b>) POD activity. (<b>c</b>) CAT activity. (<b>d</b>) PRO content. (<b>e</b>) Soluble sugar content. (<b>f</b>) MDA content. (<b>g</b>) H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> content. (<b>h</b>) O<sub>2</sub><sup>−</sup> content. (<b>i</b>) O<sub>2</sub><sup>−</sup> rate. The letters on the bar chart represent different levels of significance, with <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Effects of melatonin on amylase and lactase activity under HS. (<b>a</b>) α-GAL activity. (<b>b</b>) β-GAL activity. (<b>c</b>) α-AMS activity. The letters on the bar chart represent different levels of significance, with <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Effects of melatonin treatment on plant hormones in maize seeds under HS. (<b>a</b>) ABA content. (<b>b</b>) GA content.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Effects of melatonin on various factors of maize seed germination under HS. (<b>a</b>) Principal component analysis. (<b>b</b>) Correlation analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Analysis of differentially expressed genes in maize seeds under HS. (<b>a</b>) Bar chart showing the number of DEGs. (<b>b</b>) Venn diagram of DEGs. (<b>c</b>) Volcano plot illustrating DEGs at 12 h for each group. (<b>d</b>) Volcano plot comparing DEGs at 12 h between HS and HMT treatments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Enrichment analysis of DEGs. (<b>a</b>) GO enrichment analysis of DEGs. (<b>b</b>) KEGG enrichment analysis of DEGs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>qRT-PCR of 12 DEGs associated with maize seed germination under HS. (<b>a</b>) ZmHSF70. (<b>b</b>) ZmHSF101. (<b>c</b>) ZmDREB2A. (<b>d</b>) ZmSOD. (<b>e</b>) ZmPOD. (<b>f</b>) ZmCAT. (<b>g</b>) ZmPRO. (<b>h</b>) ZmZmGA3. (<b>i</b>) ZmGA20. (<b>j</b>) ZmZEP. (<b>k</b>) ZmNCED. (<b>l</b>) ZmCYP707A.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Screening, functional annotation, and enrichment analysis of DMs. (<b>a</b>) Volcano plot of DMs. (<b>b</b>) Classification petal plot of DMs. (<b>c</b>) Cluster analysis of DMs. (<b>d</b>) Enrichment analysis of DMs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The common pathway diagram of the joint transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Analysis of plant hormone synthesis and signal transduction pathways in maize seeds under HS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Starch and sucrose metabolism pathways in maize seeds under HS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Analysis of the phenylpropanoid biosynthesis pathway in maize seeds under HS.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 2405 KiB  
Article
The Influence of Planting Speed of a Maize Vacuum Planter on Plant Spacing Variability and Ear Parameters
by Igor Petrović, Filip Vučajnk, Stanislav Trdan, Rajko Bernik and Matej Vidrih
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 462; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020462 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Planting speed has an important impact on plant spacing variability and also grain yield. In a two-year study, the effects of planting speeds of 6, 9, and 12 km/h on maize plant spacing and, consequently, ear parameters were investigated. We wanted to determine [...] Read more.
Planting speed has an important impact on plant spacing variability and also grain yield. In a two-year study, the effects of planting speeds of 6, 9, and 12 km/h on maize plant spacing and, consequently, ear parameters were investigated. We wanted to determine whether increasing the planting speed increases the plant spacing parameters and what effects this has on ear parameters and grain yield. In both experimental years, no differences between the three planting speeds were found in terms of mean plant spacing, plant density, the multiple index, and the miss index. However, the standard deviation of reference spacings and precision increased with the increase in planting speed from 6 to 12 km/h. In 2022, the differences between plant spacings measured using UAV photogrammetry and manual measurements were smaller (<1 cm) than in 2023. The plant spacing data obtained from 3D point clouds show a strong correlation (r = 0.97) with the manual measurements for all three planting speeds. The proposed method is suitable for measuring plant spacing in maize. In 2022, no differences appeared in grain yield and ear parameters between the planting speeds; however, in 2023, the grain yield and kernel mass per ear were greater at planting speeds of 6 and 9 km/h than at a planting speed of 12 km/h in 2023. Individual ear analysis in 2023 showed an increase of 0.73 g in kernel mass per plant with a 1 cm increase in plant spacing, resulting in a 58 kg/ha yield increase. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Precision and Digital Agriculture)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>UAV survey area within block 1, where both UAV and manual measurements were performed in the year 2023. The stakes, GCPs, and MTPs are visible and were set in block 1 for data comparison. The row numbers are marked, along with the treatment planting speed within the single plot unit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Linear regression model for the relationship between precision and planting speed (of the vacuum planter), with 95% confidence intervals for the mean prediction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Linear regression model for the relationship between UAV plant spacing and manual plant spacing, with 95% confidence intervals for the mean prediction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Linear regression model of the relationship between kernel mass per plant (g) and plant spacing (cm).</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 2421 KiB  
Article
ZmC2GnT Positively Regulates Maize Seed Rot Resistance Against Fusarium verticillioides
by Doudou Sun, Huan Li, Wenchao Ye, Zhihao Song, Zijian Zhou, Pei Jing, Jiafa Chen and Jianyu Wu
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 461; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020461 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Fusarium verticillioides can systematically infect maize through seeds, triggering stalk rot and ear rot at a later stage, thus resulting in yield loss and quality decline. Seeds carrying F. verticillioides are unsuitable for storage and pose a serious threat to human and animal [...] Read more.
Fusarium verticillioides can systematically infect maize through seeds, triggering stalk rot and ear rot at a later stage, thus resulting in yield loss and quality decline. Seeds carrying F. verticillioides are unsuitable for storage and pose a serious threat to human and animal health due to the toxins released by the fungus. Previously, the candidate gene ZmC2GnT was identified, using linkage and association analysis, as potentially implicated in maize seed resistance to F. verticillioides; however, its disease resistance mechanism remained unknown. Our current study revealed that ZmC2GnT codes an N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase, using sequence structure and evolutionary analysis. The candidate gene association analysis revealed multiple SNPs located in the UTRs and introns of ZmC2GnT. Cloning and comparing ZmC2GnT showed variations in the promoter and CDS of resistant and susceptible materials. The promoter of ZmC2GnT in the resistant parent contains one extra cis-element ABRE associated with the ABA signal, compared to the susceptible parent. Moreover, the amino acid sequence of ZmC2GnT in the resistant parent matches that of B73, but the susceptible parent contains ten amino acid alterations. The resistant material BT-1 and the susceptible material N6 were used as parents to observe the expression level of the ZmC2GnT. The results revealed that the expression of ZmC2GnT in disease-resistant maize seeds was significantly up-regulated after infection with F. verticillioides. After treatment with F. verticillioides or ABA, the expression activity of the ZmC2GnT promoter increased significantly in the resistant material, but no discernible difference was detected in the susceptible material. When ZmC2GnT from resistant and susceptible materials was overexpressed in Arabidopsis thaliana, the seeds’ resistance to F. verticillioides increased, although there was no significant difference between the two types of overexpressed plants. Our study revealed that ZmC2GnT could participate in the immune process of plants against pathogenic fungus. ZmC2GnT plays a significant role in regulating the disease-resistance process of maize seeds, laying the foundation for future research into the regulatory mechanism and the development of new disease-resistant maize varieties. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Breeding and Genetics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The structural and phylogenetic analysis of the candidate gene <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT.</span> (<b>A</b>) Gene structure of <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> (<span class="html-italic">GRMZM2G099255</span>). The dark green boxes represent UTRs, the deep yellow boxes represent exons, and the black lines represent introns. (<b>B</b>) Cartoon of ZmC2GnT protein predicted by <a href="http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/" target="_blank">http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/</a> (accessed on 15 October 2024). The purple box represents low complexity, the blue box denotes the transmembrane region, and the black box is the Pfam domain. (<b>C</b>) Phylogeny tree of <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> of maize and other related plant proteins. It was constructed using the MEGA 11 (<a href="https://www.megasoftware.net/" target="_blank">https://www.megasoftware.net/</a>, accessed on 15 October 2024). The <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> homologous sequences from <span class="html-italic">Sorghum bicolor</span>, <span class="html-italic">Arabidopsis thaliana</span>, <span class="html-italic">Triticum aestivum</span>, <span class="html-italic">Oryza sativa</span>, and <span class="html-italic">Zea mays</span> were obtained by a BLAST search of the NCBI database.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The association analysis of the candidate gene <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span>. (<b>A</b>) SNPs in the gene <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> and its upstream 5 kb and downstream 1 kb were isolated from 217 lines using resequencing data, and association analysis was performed. The blue triangle represents SNPs significantly associated with resistance. The positions are 5_58174632, 5_58176692, 5_58176725, 5_58176831, 5_58177019, 5_58177074, 5_58177075, 5_58176782, 5_58165368, and 5_58178467. The black arrow represents the genetic direction. The inverted triangle reflects LD values. Gray, 0–0.2; yellow, 0.2–0.4; purple, 0.4–0.6; blue, 0.6–0.8; and red, 0.8–1.0. (<b>B</b>) Haplotypes analysis associated with disease grade. The mean disease grade of inbred lines has two haplotypes, “CC” and “TT”. * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Expression analysis of <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span>. Expression analysis of <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> in the seeds of BT-1 and N6 at different time points after treatment with <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span> using RT-qPCR. Data are means ± SD from three biological replicates. * <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05; **** <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.0001; ns, no significant difference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GUS promoter analysis of <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> in BT-1 and N6 parental lines. The GUS gene, driven by promoters of <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT<sup>BT</sup><sup>-1</sup></span> or <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT<sup>N6</sup></span>, was transiently transformed into <span class="html-italic">Nicotiana benthamiana</span> seedlings. GUS staining was used to determine the promoter activity when inoculated with water, <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span>, and ABA, respectively. CK, control check; FV, <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span>. Red scale = 2 mm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p><span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT</span> overexpressed transgenic lines of Arabidopsis showing increased resistance to <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span>. (<b>A</b>) Arabidopsis wild-type (WT) and <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT<sup>BT</sup><sup>-1</sup></span> overexpressed transgenic lines inoculated with water and <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span> for ten days each. (<b>B</b>) Arabidopsis wild-type (WT) and <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT<sup>N6</sup></span> overexpressed transgenic lines inoculated with water and <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span> for ten days each. (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>) Germination rate of WT, <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT<sup>BT</sup><sup>-1</sup></span>, and <span class="html-italic">ZmC2GnT<sup>N6</sup></span> after water and <span class="html-italic">F. verticillioides</span> treatment. The number of germinated seeds in (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>) were counted. One hundred Arabidopsis seeds were placed initially in each area of the four-zone Petri dish. Data are presented as means ± SD, <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3. One-way ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis. Significant differences are indicated with different letters. <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 4804 KiB  
Article
Indices to Identify Historical and Future Periods of Drought for the Maize Crop (Zea mays L.) in Central Mexico
by Alejandro Cruz-González, Ramón Arteaga-Ramírez, Ignacio Sánchez-Cohen, Alejandro Ismael Monterroso-Rivas and Jesús Soria-Ruiz
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 460; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020460 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Agricultural drought is a condition that threatens natural ecosystems, water security, and food security. The timely identification of an agricultural drought event is essential to mitigating its effects. However, achieving a reliable and accurate assessment is challenging due to the interannual variability of [...] Read more.
Agricultural drought is a condition that threatens natural ecosystems, water security, and food security. The timely identification of an agricultural drought event is essential to mitigating its effects. However, achieving a reliable and accurate assessment is challenging due to the interannual variability of precipitation in a region. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify the months with drought during the agricultural cycle of the maize crop (Zea mays L.) in the Atlacomulco Rural Development District (ARDD) as a study area using the SPI and SPEI indices and their impact on each phenological stage. The results show that when analyzing the historical period (1985–2017), the ARDD is a region prone to agricultural droughts with a duration of one month. The stages of grain filling and ripening were the most vulnerable, since SPI and SPEI-1 quantify that 25% and 31% of the total months with drought occur during those stages, respectively. Towards the 2041–2080 horizon, the MCG ACCESS-ESM1-5 with the SSP2-4.5 scenario identified an occurrence of dry periods with 17% and 20% by SPI and SPEI, respectively, while for SSP5-8.5, 17% and 22% of the total number of periods corresponded to dry months with SPI and SPEI, respectively. Greater recurrence will be observed in the future, specifically after the year 2061, meaning an increase in the frequency of agricultural drought events in the region, causing difficult and erratic productive conditions for each agricultural cycle and threatening sustainable development. Therefore, it is necessary to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change in this sector. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the ARDD and additional information for the period 1985–2017: (<b>A</b>) weather stations, (<b>B</b>) annual precipitation (mm·yr<sup>−1</sup>), (<b>C</b>) annual minimum temperature (°C), and (<b>D</b>) annual maximum temperature (°C).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Variations in precipitation predicted for the study area with the GCM ACCESS-ESM1-5, CNRM-CM6-1, HadGEM3-GC31-LL, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, and MRI-ESM2-0 GCMs, and shared socioeconomic pathways SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Correlation between SPI-1 and SPEI-1 for two climate change scenarios (historical and 2041–2080 with SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Temporal distribution of SPI-1 and SPEI-1 on the monthly time scale. (<b>A</b>) Historical period (1985–2017); (<b>B</b>) SSP2-4.5 (2041–2080); (<b>C</b>) SSP5-8.5 (2041–2080).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Frequency distribution of SPI and SPEI values on the 1-month time scale in the ARDD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Classification of drought values in the different maize phenological stages, SPI-1 and SPEI-1, historical period 1985–2017. G-E (germination and emergence), VD (vegetative development), F-P (flowering and pollination), GF-M (grain filling and maturity), and H (harvest).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Classification of drought values in the different maize phenological stages, SPI-1 and SPEI-1 with SSP2-4.5. Period 2041–2080.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Classification of drought values in the different maize phenological stages, SPI-1 and SPEI-1 with SSP5-8.5. Period 2041–2080.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 2241 KiB  
Article
Comparative Effects of Fertilizer Efficiency Enhancers on Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture
by Xiaoyu Shi, Lingli Wang, Zhanbo Wei, Lei Zhang and Qiang Gao
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 459; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020459 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Nitrogen (N) fertilizer incorporation of efficiency enhancer is a well-established practice aiming at reducing N loss while enhancing crop yield. However, the effect of different kinds of fertilizer efficiency enhancer on N use efficiency (NUE) and gas loss are rarely compared and poorly [...] Read more.
Nitrogen (N) fertilizer incorporation of efficiency enhancer is a well-established practice aiming at reducing N loss while enhancing crop yield. However, the effect of different kinds of fertilizer efficiency enhancer on N use efficiency (NUE) and gas loss are rarely compared and poorly comprehended. Here, we conducted a field experiment involving the combination of urease and nitrification inhibitor (NI), the biological inhibitor eugenol (DE) and the bioploymer poly-glutamic acid (PG) and their combinations (NI + PG, NI + DE, PG + DE) to evaluate their effects on crop yield, NUE, NH3 volatilization and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Results indicated that NI, DE, PG and their combinations significantly enhanced the crop yield, N uptake and NUE. NI, DE and PG are all effective in reducing NH3 volatilization and N2O emission, averagely decreased by 11.13%, 6.83%, 8.29%, respectively, and by 11.15%, 4.32%, 8.35%, respectively, while have no significant effects on CO2-C and CH4-C fluxes, except PG significantly increases CO2-C emission and thus global warming potential. The combination of these three efficiency enhancers has no multiply effect on maize yield, NUE and gas loss. These findings help to screen the fertilizer efficiency enhancer that can be more effectively utilized in agricultural practices and contribute to their application strategies within agricultural systems. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Monthly average precipitation and temperature (<b>a</b>) and daily precipitation and temperature during maize growing season (<b>b</b>) in 2021 at the experimental site.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Soil NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>-N (<b>a</b>) and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup>-N (<b>b</b>) concentration in 0–20 cm soil depth during maize growth (mean ± SE). CK0: unfertilization, CK: farmer’s common practices, NI: CK + N inhibitors, PG: CK + poly-glutamic acid, DE: CK + eugenol, NP: CK + inhibitors + poly-glutamic acid, ND: CK + inhibitors + eugenol, PD: CK + poly-glutamic acid + eugenol. The same below.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>NH<sub>3</sub>-N volatilization flux (<b>a</b>) and N<sub>2</sub>O-N flux (<b>b</b>) during maize growth (mean ± SE).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Cumulative NH<sub>3</sub>-N, N<sub>2</sub>O-N and total emissions during maize growth (mean ± SE). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Surface CO<sub>2</sub>-C flux (<b>a</b>) and CH<sub>4</sub>-C flux (<b>b</b>) during maize growth (mean ± SE).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Cumulative CO<sub>2</sub>-C, CH<sub>4</sub>-C and total emissions during maize growth (mean ± SE). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Yield (<b>a</b>), NUE (<b>b</b>) and gaseous N loss intensity (GNLI, (<b>c</b>)) under different treatments (mean ± SE). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 3615 KiB  
Article
Impact of Polymer-Coated Controlled-Release Fertilizer on Maize Growth, Production, and Soil Nitrate in Sandy Soils
by Morgan Morrow, Vivek Sharma, Rakesh K. Singh, Jonathan Adam Watson, Gabriel Maltais-Landry and Robert Conway Hochmuth
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 455; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020455 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Polymer-coated controlled-release fertilizers’ (CRFs) unique nutrient release mechanism has the potential to mitigate the leaching of mobile soil nutrients, such as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N). The study aimed to evaluate the capacity of a polymer-coated CRFs to maintain maize (Zea mays L.) [...] Read more.
Polymer-coated controlled-release fertilizers’ (CRFs) unique nutrient release mechanism has the potential to mitigate the leaching of mobile soil nutrients, such as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N). The study aimed to evaluate the capacity of a polymer-coated CRFs to maintain maize (Zea mays L.) crop growth/health indicators and production goals, while reducing NO3-N leaching risks compared to conventional (CONV) fertilizers in North Florida. Four CRF rates (168, 224, 280, 336 kg N ha−1) were assessed against a no nitrogen (N) application and the current University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) recommended CONV (269 kg N ha−1) fertilizer rate. All CRF treatments, even the lowest CRF rate (168 kg N ha−1), produced yields, leaf tissue N concentrations, plant heights, aboveground biomasses (AGB), and leaf area index (LAI) significantly (p < 0.05) greater than or similar to the CONV fertilizer treatment. Additionally, in 2022, the CONV fertilizer treatment resulted in increases in late-season movement of soil NO3-N into highly leachable areas of the soil profile (60–120 cm), while none of the CRF treatments did. However, back-to-back leaching rainfall (>76.2 mm over three days) events in the 2023 growing season masked any trends as NO3-N was likely completely flushed from the system. The results of this two-year study suggest that polymer-coated CRFs can achieve desirable crop growth, crop health, and production goals, while also having the potential to reduce the late-season leaching potential of NO3-N; however, more research is needed to fully capture and quantify the movement of NO3-N through the soil profile. Correlation and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that CRF performance was significantly influenced by environmental factors such as rainfall and temperature. In 2022, temperature-driven nitrogen release aligned with crop uptake, supporting higher yields and minimizing NO3-N movement. In 2023, however, rainfall-driven variability led to an increase in NO3-N leaching and masked the benefits of CRF treatments. These analyses provided critical insights into the relationships between environmental factors and CRF performance, emphasizing the importance of adaptive fertilizer management under varying climatic conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conventional and Alternative Fertilization of Crops)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Graphical weather data depicting lines of maximum (red), minimum (blue), and average (grey) temperatures along with bars of total daily rainfall (orange) throughout 2022 and 2023 maize growing seasons.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Crop health and growth parameters including (<b>A</b>) plant height, (<b>B</b>) leaf area index, (<b>C</b>) leaf tissue nitrogen, and (<b>D</b>) aboveground biomass (AGB) for 2022 and 2023 maize growing seasons across fertilizer treatments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Soil nitrate-nitrogen (NO<sub>3</sub>-N, mg kg<sup>−1</sup>) at various soil profile depths including (<b>A</b>) 0–30 cm, (<b>B</b>) 30–60 cm, (<b>C</b>) 60–90 cm, and (<b>D</b>) 90–120 cm for the 2022 and 2023 maize growing seasons across fertilizer treatments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The mean soil nitrate-nitrogen (NO<sub>3</sub>-N) within the 60–120 cm soil profile for 2022 and 2023 maize growing seasons; this figure shows the color gradient of the growth stages, with the youngest stage (V6) being the darkest purple and progressively getting lighter until the R5 growth stage.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Violin plot graph of grain yield under different nitrogen fertilizer treatments for 2022 and 2023 maize growing seasons. Treatments with same letters within each year are not significantly different at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>A correlation matrix illustrating the relationships between climatic factors, soil moisture, nitrate-nitrogen (NO<sub>3</sub>-N) concentrations at different depths, and plant growth attributes at the vegetative (V12) and reproductive (R3 and R5) growth stages during the 2022 and 2023 maize growing seasons. The variables include soil moisture (VWC) at 30 cm, 60 cm, and 90 cm depths (VWC_30, VWC_60, VWC_90, respectively); NO<sub>3</sub>-N concentrations at three soil depths (NO<sub>3</sub>-N_30: 0–30 cm, NO<sub>3</sub>-N_60: 30–60 cm, NO<sub>3</sub>-N_90: 60–90 cm); and plant growth parameters including plant height (Height) and the leaf area index (LAI). Positive correlations are shown in red, while negative correlations are represented in blue, with the intensity of the color corresponding to the strength of the correlation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) biplot showing the relationships between soil nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (NO<sub>3</sub>_30, NO<sub>3</sub>_60, NO<sub>3</sub>_90), soil moisture (VWC_30, VWC_60, VWC_90), cumulative rainfall (RAIN_sum, RAIN_cum), and crop performance metrics (LAI, height, yield) during the 2022 (red) and 2023 (blue) maize growing seasons.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 5924 KiB  
Article
Integrated Single Superphosphate with Cattle Manure Increased Growth, Yield, and Phosphorus Availability of Maize (Zea mays L.) Under Rainfed Conditions
by Samraiz Ali and Abid Ali
Nitrogen 2025, 6(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen6010009 - 13 Feb 2025
Abstract
Mostly, phosphorus (P) fertilizers are fixed in the interlayer of soil and become unavailable to crop plants. Combined inorganic fertilizers with organic manures could be a suitable solution to release these nutrients from the soil. P deficiency in soil adversely affected crop growth [...] Read more.
Mostly, phosphorus (P) fertilizers are fixed in the interlayer of soil and become unavailable to crop plants. Combined inorganic fertilizers with organic manures could be a suitable solution to release these nutrients from the soil. P deficiency in soil adversely affected crop growth and development to a larger extent. To check out this problem, present research was conducted over a two-year period to evaluate the efficiency of a combined mixture of inorganic P and organic manure as a better farming strategy, in relation to their sole treatments, for enhancing P availability, plant growth, yield and quality, and soil properties. The inorganic source of P was SSP in the form of P2O5, while the organic source was cattle manure mixed with crop residues called farmyard manure (FYM). The experiment consisted of the same six treatments over each year: (i) control (0F+0P), (ii) 45 kg P2O5 ha−1 (45P), (iii) 90 kg P2O5 ha−1 (90P), (iv) 45 kg P2O5 ha−1 + 1000 kg FYM ha−1 (45P+1000F), (v) 1000 kg FYM ha−1 (1000F), and (vi) 2000 kg FYM ha−1 (2000F), using randomized complete block design (RCBD), to five replications. Results demonstrated that the combination of SSP with FYM increased the plant height (27.9%), grain yield (23.4%), and plant P uptake efficiency (43.7%) of maize as compared to sole SSP at 90 kg P2O5 ha−1, which occurred due to improved P availability in soil. By comparing sole amendments of P fertilizer sources, FYM-treated plots have performed better in increasing maize growth and yield components such as plant height, dry matter, crop growth rate (CGR), net photosynthetic rate, grain yield, and crude protein (e.g., nitrogen contents); this happened due to enhanced soil chemical properties that might be related to improvement in P level and decreased bulk density of soil. Further, significant positive correlations were exhibited among studied crop and soil data. The plant available P and grain protein contents (N concentration) also showed a significant positive correlation and exhibited higher nitrogen contents under organic amendments of P fertilizer, as compared to inorganic treatments. The study concluded that combined SSP at 45 kg P2O5 ha−1 with organic cattle manure at 1000 kg ha−1 has a great potential for enhancing maize productivity under water deficit conditions. Results of this research may further be improved by including rigorous soil samples and field heterogeneity data between the plots and the years, which will provide more clear findings from a combined mixture of organic and inorganic fertilization. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Weather conditions (rainfall and temperature) during two years of growing seasons (2019–2020). S: sowing and H: harvesting.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Means of two years of data of plant height (<b>A</b>), total biomass (<b>B</b>), leaf area plant<sup>−1</sup> (<b>C</b>), and DMP (<b>D</b>) of maize as influenced by sole and combined treatments of SSP (P) and FYM (F). Means with a dissimilar letter on the bar made a significant difference at a 5% significant level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Means of two years of data of CGR (<b>A</b>), photosynthesis rate (<b>B</b>), LAI (<b>C</b>), and plant P contents (<b>D</b>) of maize as influenced by sole and combined treatments of SSP (P) and FYM (F). Means with a dissimilar letter on the bar made a significant difference at a 5% significant level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Means of two years of data of pH (<b>A</b>), EC<sub>e</sub> (<b>B</b>), bulk density (<b>C</b>), and 1000-grain weight (<b>D</b>) of maize as influenced by sole and combined treatments of SSP (P) and FYM (F). Means with a dissimilar letter on the bar made a significant difference at a 5% significant level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Means of two years of data of grain yield (<b>A</b>), and grain protein contents (<b>B</b>) of maize as influenced by sole and combined treatments of SSP (P) and FYM (F). Means with a dissimilar letter on the bar made a significant difference at a 5% significant level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Pearson correlations of studied attributes of maize (calculated by two-year means). * and ** indicate significant differences at <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.01 and <span class="html-italic">p</span> ≤ 0.001, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Parallel plots of studied attributes of maize, indicating with highest and lowest values of maize data collected (means of two-year data).</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 3419 KiB  
Article
Mapping Novel Loci and Candidate Genes Associated with Cadmium Content in Maize Using Genome-Wide Association Analysis
by Ruiqiang Lai, Xiaoming Xue, Zaid Chachar, Hang Zhu, Weiwei Chen, Xuhui Li, Yuanqiang Hu, Ming Chen, Xiangbo Zhang, Jiajia Li, Lina Fan and Yongwen Qi
Agriculture 2025, 15(4), 389; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15040389 - 12 Feb 2025
Abstract
Cadmium is a toxic, carcinogenic element that threatens food safety due to its tendency to be absorbed by plants along with essential nutrients. This study conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) using SNP genotyping data from 170 natural maize populations to analyze cadmium [...] Read more.
Cadmium is a toxic, carcinogenic element that threatens food safety due to its tendency to be absorbed by plants along with essential nutrients. This study conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) using SNP genotyping data from 170 natural maize populations to analyze cadmium content in maize grains across three environments. The MLM_Q+Kinship and MLM_PCA+Kinship models identified 6424 (HN), 991 (JMO), and 1358 (JMT) SNPs linked to cadmium accumulation in the MLM_Q+Kinship model, with 121 SNPs common across all environments. Additionally, the MLM_PCA+Kinship model detected 824 (HN), 950 (JMO), and 910 (JMT) SNPs, with 14 shared loci. In total, 126 reliable SNP loci, representing 14 QTLs, were identified, highlighting 12 superior haplotypes and 2 favorable alleles. A negative correlation between these loci and cadmium content was observed. Within 100 kbp of the QTLs, 45 candidate genes were identified, associated with 11 GO terms and 5 KEGG pathways. Analysis revealed 12 maize lines with at least one stable locus, all of which showed reduced Cd levels. Key hybrids, such as CAU95×CAU65 and CAU95×CAU266, demonstrated the potential for low Cd accumulation. This study provides valuable insights for breeding maize with reduced Cd uptake using stable gene loci discovered through GWAS. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Genetics, Genomics and Breeding)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Association analysis and linkage disequilibrium analysis of populations. (<b>A</b>) The number of significant QTNs and stable QTNs for Cd concentration with two GWAS models (MLM_Q+Kinship and MLM_Q+PCA) in HN, JMO, and JMT. Horizontal bars show the number of QTNs for different environments and methods. The colors of circles corresponding to horizontal bars indicate the environment in which QTNs was detected and the method applied. Blue indicates that QTNs was identified using the MLM_Q+Kinship model in a single environment, but dark blue indicates that QTNs was identified using the MLM_Q+Kinship model in three environments; brown color indicates that QTNs was identified using the MLM_PCA+Kinship model in a single environment, but dark brown indicates that QTNs was identified using the MLM_PCA+Kinship model in three environments; red color indicates that QTNs was identified not only using two GWAS model, but also in three environments. (<b>B</b>) Linkage disequilibrium analysis between pairwise QTNs which was detected using one of the GWAS model in three environments; QTNs within 50 kb of the same chromosome and with R<sup>2</sup> &gt; 0.6 were identified as strong linkage and classified as haplotype blocks, including H1–H12, but the S5 and S24 was independent showing correcting location. The triangular slant represents the QTN number (S1–S126) in ascending order, and each rectangle represents the R<sup>2</sup>-value (upper) or <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value (lower) between the two QTNs. (<b>C</b>) The number of each QTL. Each haplotype block (H1–H12) was a single QTL (<span class="html-italic">qH1</span>–<span class="html-italic">qH12</span>), while an independent QTN (S5 and S24) as a single QTL (<span class="html-italic">qS5</span> and <span class="html-italic">qS24</span>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Interaction analysis and classification of candidate proteins. Interaction analysis of the candidate proteins was performed using STRING software, and 38 proteins were identified. A circle represents a protein, and its protein ID is labeled at the upper left end. The same color indicates being classified into the same subgroup using the K-mean classification method, while the predicted three-dimensional structure of protein is displayed in the circle. The connecting line between the two circles represents the possible interaction between the predicted proteins (high score = 0.7).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The expression patterns of candidate genes and yeast cadmium tolerance. (<b>A</b>) Three-leaf stage maize seedlings were treated with 0 mM, 0.1 mM, and 0.5 μM CdCl<sub>2</sub> for 8 h and 48 h, respectively. Total RNA was extracted and was then analyzed via RT-qPCR. The signals of 0 mM CdCl<sub>2</sub> sample were set to 1. The <span class="html-italic">ZmActin1</span> gene was used as an internal control. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error (SE) from triplicate experiments. ANOVA was performed for significance analysis (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05), which same letters indicate no significant difference, but different letters indicate a significant difference. (<b>B</b>) Three genes were overexpressed into yeast <span class="html-italic">AH109</span> and treated with 0 mM and 0.075 mM CdCl<sub>2</sub> on -Leu SD medium for 72 h using an empty vector <span class="html-italic">pGBDT7</span> (BD) as a control. G21 represents Zm00001eb093750, G35 represents Zm00001d028408, and G39 represents Zm00001d005231.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Prediction of protein three-dimensional structure and SUMOylation sites. (<b>A</b>) Q41815 and (<b>B</b>) A0A1D6EIV9 in purple boxes and (<b>C</b>) A0A1D6EL68 in green boxes. SWISS-MODEL (<a href="https://swissmodel.expasy.org/" target="_blank">https://swissmodel.expasy.org/</a>, accessed on 23 February 2024) was used for three-dimensional structural analysis of proteins and for predicting SUMOylation sites based on GPS-SUMO software (<a href="https://sumo.biocuckoo.cn/advanced.php" target="_blank">https://sumo.biocuckoo.cn/advanced.php</a>, accessed on 23 February 2024) with a high threshold. The blue position displayed in the amino acid sequence represents the position of serine or threonine, while the black arrow indicates the predicted SUMOylation site. “K” represents lysine, which is the predicted “K” that can be SUMOylated, and the number following represents the position of the amino acid sequence where “K” is located. For example, “K30” represents lysine at the 30th position of the amino acid sequence.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The differences in Cd concentration between superior and alternative alleles of each QTL in different environments. (<b>A</b>–<b>N</b>): Fourteen QTNs corresponding to superior alleles (with O before the QTL name) and alternative alleles (with I before the QTL name), such as O<span class="html-italic">qH1</span> represents the superior alleles of <span class="html-italic">qH1</span>, while I<span class="html-italic">qH1</span> represents the alternative alleles. Red box-plots indicate environmental HN, purple box-plots represent environmental JMO, and green box-plots represent environmental JMT. Different letters indicate significant differences at the <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value &lt; 0.05 using ANOVA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Scatter plot with fitted regression lines representing the correlation between superior alleles and cadmium concentration in maize grain. A negative correlation was calculated between the number of superior alleles and Cd concentration of maize grain in (<b>A</b>) HN, (<b>B</b>) JMO, and (<b>C</b>) JMT. HN: Hainan; JMO: first repeat of Jiangmen; JMT: second repeat of Jiangmen.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 1787 KiB  
Article
Genetic Trends in Seven Years of Maize Breeding at Mozambique’s Institute of Agricultural Research
by Pedro Fato, Pedro Chaúque, Constantino Senete, Egas Nhamucho, Clay Sneller, Samuel Mutiga, Lennin Musundire, Dagne Wegary, Biswanath Das and Boddupalli M. Prasanna
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 449; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020449 - 12 Feb 2025
Abstract
Assessing genetic gains from historical data provides insights to improve breeding programs. This study evaluated the Mozambique National Maize Program’s (MNMP’s) genetic gains using data from advanced germplasm trials conducted at 21 locations between 2014 and 2020. Genetic gains were calculated by regressing [...] Read more.
Assessing genetic gains from historical data provides insights to improve breeding programs. This study evaluated the Mozambique National Maize Program’s (MNMP’s) genetic gains using data from advanced germplasm trials conducted at 21 locations between 2014 and 2020. Genetic gains were calculated by regressing the genotypic best linear unbiased estimates of grain yield and complementary agronomic traits against the initial year of genotype evaluation (n = 592). The annual genetic gain was expressed as a percentage of the trait mean. While grain yield, the primary breeding focus, showed no significant improvement, significant gains were observed for the plant height (0.67%), ear height (1.74%), ears per plant (1.31%), ear position coefficient (1.22%), and husk cover (4.7%). Negative genetic gains were detected for the days to anthesis (−0.5%), the anthesis–silking interval or ASI (−9.31%), and stalk lodging (−5.01%). These results indicate that while MNMP did not achieve the desired positive genetic gain for grain yield, progress was made for traits related to plant resilience, particularly the ASI and stalk lodging. MNMP should seek to incorporate new breeding technologies and human resources to enhance genetic gains for grain yield and other key traits in the maize breeding program, while developing and deploying high-yielding, climate-resilient maize varieties to address emerging food security challenges in Mozambique. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Maize Germplasm Improvement and Innovation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Genetic gain for grain yield (kg ha<sup>−1</sup>) in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials conducted by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 3060 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Genetic gain for the days to anthesis in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 65.5 days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Genetic gain for the anthesis–silking interval in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials conducted by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 3.53 days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Genetic gain for plant height in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials conducted by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 169.1 cm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Genetic gain for ear height in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 83.9 cm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Genetic gain for the ear position coefficient in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials conducted by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 0.51.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Genetic gain for ears per plant in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials conducted by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 0.88 ears per plant.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Genetic gain for husk cover in maize breeding genotypes evaluated in advanced trials by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. Best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 16.9%.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Genetic gain for stalk lodging in maize genotypes evaluated in advanced trials by the Mozambique maize breeding program between 2014 and 2020. The best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) are expressed relative to the mean of 5.44%.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 3919 KiB  
Article
Grain Protein Function Prediction Based on CNN and Residual Attention Mechanism with AlphaFold2 Structure Data
by Jing Liu, Xinping Zhang, Kai Huang, Yuqi Wei and Xiao Guan
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 1890; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15041890 - 12 Feb 2025
Abstract
The prediction of grain protein function is essential for the advancement of food science. Traditional experimental methods are associated with high costs and significant time requirements. Computational methods are recognized for their efficiency and reduced time demands. A new multimodal deep learning method, [...] Read more.
The prediction of grain protein function is essential for the advancement of food science. Traditional experimental methods are associated with high costs and significant time requirements. Computational methods are recognized for their efficiency and reduced time demands. A new multimodal deep learning method, MMSNet, is proposed in this study, and protein data of four types of grains (japonica, indica, maize, and wheat) are analyzed. This method fuses the protein structure information predicted by AlphaFold2 and combines a multiscale one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1DCNN) with a two-dimensional convolutional neural network (2DCNN) to enable the model to capture sequence and structural information effectively. We used a residual attention mechanism to replace the traditional pooling layer, thereby improving the feature extraction capability of the network layers in 2DCNN. The experimental results indicate that secondary structure and spatial structure information contribute to improving model performance. Compared with two classical methods, MMSNet demonstrates optimal performance, which validates the effectiveness of our approach in integrating complex grain protein data and highlights its potential to open new avenues for grain protein function prediction. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Bioinformatics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of Cα atoms and their spatial relationships in the protein structure. Green represents the alpha helix, blue represents the beta-sheet, and yellow represents the random coil.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic of details in protein structure data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Overview of the flow of the MMSNet method. The process consists of two main parts: data processing (<b>a</b>) and model processing (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>GO hierarchical classification layer description. Max indicates that the category of the function to be predicted uses the maximum value in its own nodes and sub-nodes as the predicted value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Computational relationship of residual attention mechanism.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Performance comparison of MMSNet and the other two algorithms on the ontology dataset.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 1911 KiB  
Article
Optimizing Water Use in Maize Irrigation with Reinforcement Learning
by Muhammad Alkaff, Abdullah Basuhail and Yuslena Sari
Mathematics 2025, 13(4), 595; https://doi.org/10.3390/math13040595 - 11 Feb 2025
Abstract
As global populations grow and environmental constraints intensify, improving agricultural water management is essential for sustainable food production. Traditional irrigation methods often lack adaptability, leading to inefficient water use. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a promising solution for developing dynamic irrigation strategies that balance [...] Read more.
As global populations grow and environmental constraints intensify, improving agricultural water management is essential for sustainable food production. Traditional irrigation methods often lack adaptability, leading to inefficient water use. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a promising solution for developing dynamic irrigation strategies that balance productivity and resource conservation. However, agricultural RL tasks are characterized by sparse actions—irrigation only when necessary—and delayed rewards realized at the end of the growing season. This study integrates RL with AquaCrop-OSPy simulations in the Gymnasium framework to develop adaptive irrigation policies for maize. We introduce a reward mechanism that penalizes incremental water usage while rewarding end-of-season yields, encouraging resource-efficient decisions. Using the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm, our RL-driven approach outperforms fixed-threshold irrigation strategies, reducing water use by 29% and increasing profitability by 9%. It achieves a water use efficiency of 76.76 kg/ha/mm, a 40% improvement over optimized soil moisture threshold methods. These findings highlight RL’s potential to address the challenges of sparse actions and delayed rewards in agricultural management, delivering significant environmental and economic benefits. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The interaction between the PPO agent and the AquaCrop-OSPy simulation within the AquaCropGymnasium framework. The notation ** represents exponentiation, where the end-of-season reward is calculated as the dry yield raised to the power of 4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Normalized rewards per episode for the PPO agent at different training milestones (500 K to 2.5 M timesteps). The overall upward trend indicates effective policy learning and performance optimization over time.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Maize yields (t/ha) under different irrigation strategies. Although the random strategy achieves the highest yield, its excessive water use and resulting financial losses limit its practicality. The PPO, SMT, and net irrigation methods provide strong yields with more sustainable water use. Rainfed conditions yield significantly less production due to reliance on natural rainfall alone.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Total irrigation applied (mm) under different strategies. PPO and SMT demonstrate efficient water use, while random irrigation applies excessive amounts. Rainfed conditions rely solely on natural precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Water efficiency (kg/ha/mm) achieved under various irrigation strategies. PPO demonstrates the highest efficiency, followed by SMT. Rainfed conditions do not apply since no additional water is used.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Profit per hectare (USD/ha) under different irrigation strategies. PPO achieves the highest profitability, surpassing the optimized SMT strategy by approximately 9%. Random and rainfed approaches yield negative profits (−) due to inefficient water use or reduced yields.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop