↓ Skip to main content

Morphological Characteristics of Maize Canopy Development as Affected by Increased Plant Density

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Morphological Characteristics of Maize Canopy Development as Affected by Increased Plant Density
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0154084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youhong Song, Yukui Rui, Guta Bedane, Jincai Li

Abstract

Improving crop productivity through higher plant density requires a detailed understanding of organ development in response to increased interplant competition. The objective of this paper is thus to investigate the characteristics of organ development under increased interplant competition. A field experiment was conducted to investigate organ development across 4 maize plant densities i.e. 2, 6, 12 and 20 plants m-2 (referred to PD2, PD6, PD12 and PD20 respectively). In response to increased interplant competition, lengths of both laminae and sheaths increased in lower phytomers, but decreased in upper phytomers. Sheath extension appeared to be less sensitive to increased interplant competition than lamina extension. Extension of laminae and internodes responded to increased plant density as soon as onset of mild interplant competition, but did not respond any further to severe competition. Both lamina width and internode diameter were reduced due to a smaller growth rate in response to increased plant density. Overall, this study identified that organ expansion rate can be taken as the key morphological factor to determine the degree of interplant competition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 23%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 45%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,455,405
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#155,234
of 195,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,961
of 299,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,076
of 5,013 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,013 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.