Agronomy Journal Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Traore, S. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Traore, S. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Traore, S. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Crop Growth and Development
Right arrow Water Stress
Right arrow Maize
Right arrow Plant Disease
Right arrow Crop Genetics
Agronomy Journal 92:1027-1035 (2000)
© 2000 American Society of Agronomy

CORN

Bt and Non-Bt Maize Growth and Development as Affected by Temperature and Drought Stress

Seydou B. Traorea, Richard E. Carlsonb, Clinton D. Pilcherc and Marlin E. Ricec

a P.O Box 262, Soil-Water-Plant Laboratory, Sotuba, Mali
b Dep. of Agronomy, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011 USA
c Dep. of Entomology, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011 USA

richard{at}iastate.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion
 REFERENCES
 
Seed companies have commercialized new transgenic maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids that are resistant to European corn borer [Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)]. Drought stress may affect the expression of Bt proteins in maize tissues, and its resistance to European corn borer (ECB). This study was conducted at the Iowa State University Hinds Irrigation Farm, Ames, IA, to characterize the effect of drought stress on Bt maize. Growth and development measurements were taken in 1997 and 1998 from Bt and non-Bt maize plants subjected to various soil water deficit treatments during peak ECB egg laying periods (late June, first generation; late July, second generation) on maize plants grown in buried, 1 m deep, 123-L containers filled with Nicollet loam soil (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Aquic Hapludolls). Water deficit delayed leaf appearance up to 6 d, depending on leaf number and tasseling up to 3 d. It also reduced leaf area as much as 33% and plant height by 15%, depending on leaf number and timing of water deficit. For these characteristics, there was no significant difference between Bt and non-Bt maize plants. There were significant differences among Bt and non-Bt plants for second generation corn borer damage with Bt plants affected the least. This resulted in significant yield differences between Bt and non-Bt plants. Compared with non-Bt plants, Bt plants exhibited significantly greater total plant weight in 1997 (9.7%) and grain yield in 1998 (9.4%). These differences depended on variety and seemed related to 100-seed weights.

Abbreviations: WD, water deficit treatment • Bt, Bacillus thuringiensis • ECB, European corn borer • GTI, general thermal index • LAI, leaf area index


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion
 REFERENCES
 
SINCE

1996, several seed companies have commercialized new transgenic maize hybrids that are resistant to European corn borer (ECB). These new hybrids, commonly known as Bt corn, have been genetically engineered to incorporate genes of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (Koziel et al., 1993; Armstrong et al., 1995). The toxic Bt protein is effective against larvae from both first and second ECB generations. Drought stress is known to have both positive and negative effects on protein synthesis in plants, depending on the duration and intensity of the stress (Shiralipour and West, 1968; Gershenzon, 1984; Mattson and Haack, 1987; Lilburn et al., 1991). It may therefore affect a plant's ability to tolerate stress, and therefore, affect levels of resistance to ECB.

The effect of water deficit on maize growth and development has been studied extensively. The results indicate that water deficit during the vegetative period (before tasseling) can result in shorter plants and smaller leaf area (Denmead and Shaw, 1960; NeSmith and Ritchie, 1992; Abrecht and Carberry, 1993), decreased water use due to the reduction in plant size (Robins and Domingo, 1953), decreased vegetative dry matter (Claassen and Shaw, 1970a), and delayed leaf tip emergence, tassel emergence, silking, and onset of grain filling (NeSmith and Ritchie, 1992; Abrecht and Carberry, 1993). Water deficit during the reproductive period (after tasseling) can increase the interval from silking to pollen shed (Herrero and Johnson, 1981) and shorten the grain filling period (Westgate, 1994). There also is a large amount of literature on the effect of water deficit on different maize yield components. The numerous studies indicate that grain yield can be drastically reduced as a result of water deficit during the reproductive period (Robins and Domingo, 1953; Denmead and Shaw, 1960; Harder et al., 1982; Bennett et al., 1989). This grain yield reduction has been attributed to reduced kernel number, kernel weight, or both (Claassen and Shaw, 1970b; Harder et al., 1982; Grant et al., 1989). Abrecht and Carberry (1993) mentioned, however, that nonlethal water deficit at the beginning of the season did not significantly affect grain yield and the number of kernels per plant. Sinclair et al. (1990) attributed the greater sensitivity of grain yield to water deficit at anthesis to this stage also being the period of maximum biomass accumulation and water use.

The objective of this paper is to report on the growth and development of Bt and non-Bt maize plants subjected to soil water deficit, how these measurements relate to thermal time, and analyze the effect of soil water deficit on the yield components of the two types of maize hybrids. On the same experiment, water relations were measured by infrared thermometry, porometry, and sap flow.


   Materials and methods
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
Results and discussion
 Conclusion
 REFERENCES
 
The study was conducted at the Hinds Irrigation Farm, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, during the summers of 1997 and 1998. The experimental plots were 1 m deep, 123-L plastic containers filled with soil and buried with the rim at ground level. The soil in the containers was collected from the 0.15-m upper layer of a Nicollet loam (Aquic Hapludolls). The containers were aligned in rows with 0.56 m between their centers and 0.77 m between rows. On 9 May in 1997 and 7 May in 1998, eight maize seeds were planted in each container (4 Bt on one side, 4 non-Bt on the other side) and after full germination, plants were reduced to one each of Bt and non-Bt. One container included two experimental units with an area of 0.22 m2. Growing maize plants in buried containers prevented their root systems from exploiting water from the surrounding soil while exposing them to natural field conditions. Interruption of water deficit (WD) by rainfall was prevented using a rainout shelter.

Irrigation was scheduled so that the plants experienced water deficit 3 to 4 d before the peak first and second ECB egg laying periods. The plants not subjected to water deficit (WD3) were irrigated regularly with 7.2 L (l.9 gallon, 28.8 mm) of water per container. At the time of stress imposition, irrigation was withheld until visual signs of water stress (leaf curling and discoloration) persisted for 3 consecutive days. Then, approximately half a normal watering [3.0 L (0.8 gallon, 11.5 mm)] was supplied to the stressed plants to keep them alive. This was considered a survival irrigation. This procedure was carried out for each of the ECB generations and considered separate water deficit treatments. Figure 1 illustrates the cumulative irrigation water for treatments WD1, WD2, and WD3 in 1997 and 1998. Water deficit also was imposed during other critical periods to get a total number of 24 treatments replicated four times. Treatments consisted of five periods of water deficit imposition and a control and four maize hybrids. All are listed in Table 1 . The four hybrids were [MAXIMIZER 454, CrylAb, event 176, and CIBA 4490 (non-Bt) and NK 7333 Bt, Cryl Ab, event Bt 11, and NK 7333 (non-Bt)]. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design in split plots, with water deficit treatments (WD) as main plots and hybrids (HYB) as subplots. Growth and development were monitored following Ritchie et al. (1993). The monitoring consisted mainly in marking the dates of appearance of each leaf collar and the dates when each leaf was >50% senescent. Observations of tasseling and silking were made on experimental plants, but physiological maturity was observed on five border plants every other day. The border plants were used to avoid destructive sampling from the limited experimental area.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1 Cumulative irrigation amounts (mm) for two water deficit treatments and the controls in (A) 1997 and (B) 1998

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Treatment description and imposition dates of water deficit (WD) in relation to European corn borer (ECB) generations

 
Development rate was related to thermal time computed by the CERES–Maize and GTI methods. The CERES–Maize method, initially proposed by Jones and Kiniry (1986), assumes that development is a linear function of temperature in the interval between a base temperature and an upper threshold temperature, and that no development occurs when temperature is beyond those limits. Ritchie and NeSmith (1991) found that the 10°C base temperature frequently used for maize was too high, and recommended 8°C instead. Therefore, we used the 8°C base temperature for our thermal time calculations. Other details of the CERES–Maize method are given by Jones and Kiniry (1986) and Hodges and Evans (1992).

More recently, Stewart et al. (1998) proposed the general thermal index (GTI) method of calculating thermal time. This method uses a cubic polynomial function instead of a linear one to relate development rate and temperature, thereby avoiding the temperature thresholds characteristic of the previous methods. The polynomial temperature function (FT) is:

where TA is the average daily temperature and B0, B1, and B2 are empirical coefficients.

The general thermal index (GTI) is calculated by summing daily values of the FT with time:

where {Delta}t is the time step in days and n is the number of days in the period of summation (planting to silking, or silking to maturity) (Stewart et al., 1998).

The length and maximum width of each leaf were measured after full expansion to estimate leaf area by the Mckee (1964) method. Leaf area index (LAI) was obtained by multiplying the total leaf area by plant density. Crop height was measured approximately every 10 d on each plant by stretching a measuring tape from the soil surface to the collar of the top most fully developed leaf, or the base of the tassel.

The dates of peak egg laying of both first and second ECB generations were determined using observations in surrounding fields. All naturally deposited egg masses were then systematically removed from the maize plants and plants were subsequently infested with approximately 50 newly hatched ECB larvae per plant placed inside leaf sheaths (24 June 1997 and 30 June 1998 for the first generation ECB larvae, 25 July 1997 and 24 July 1998 for the second generation ECB larvae). Fifty is a common number of insects entomologists use to infect their plants (Guthrie and Russell, 1989). At harvest, each plant was split longitudinally, the length of individual tunnels measured (cm), and the total tunneling calculated by summing each. Tunneling by first generation larvae was differentiated from that by second generation larvae based on the darker color of the former.

Growth and development observations were limited to the CIBA Bt and non-Bt hybrids, and water deficit treatments imposed during the first and second ECB generations (WD1 and WD2), respectively, and the controls (WD3) (Table 1). At harvest, the yield components (grain and biomass yield, number of kernels per ear, and 100-seed weight) and ECB tunneling were measured on every plant of all treatments.

Grain was harvested on 11 Sept. 1997 and 7 Sept. 1998, respectively. Grain yield was calculated based on the adjustment to a grain moisture content of 155 g kg-1. Leaves and stalks were harvested separately, and biomass yield was determined by adding grain yield at 155 g kg-1 moisture and the oven-dried weights of leaves and stalks. Statistical analysis of treatment effects was performed using the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst., 1985), and differences among treatment means were considered significant at the 0.05 probability level using the Fisher protected LSD. Orthogonal contrasts compare Bt and non-Bt hybrids.


   Results and discussion
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
Conclusion
 REFERENCES
 
Leaf collar appearance of Bt and non-Bt hybrids was delayed by water deficit during 1997 and 1998 (Fig. 2) . Significant differences among stressed and nonstressed plants were observed starting with the 10th leaf until the 15th leaf in 1997 and from the 12th through the 19th in 1998. These results agree with the observations of Muchow and Carberry (1989), NeSmith and Ritchie (1992), and Abrecht and Carberry (1993). No significant differences were observed between Bt and non-Bt plants, and there was no significant water deficit x hybrid interaction for leaf collar appearance.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2 Relationship between maize leaf appearance rate and thermal time after emergence calculated using the (A) CERES–Maize method and the (B) GTI method for maize with water deficit imposed during the first ECB generation(WD1) and with no water deficit (WD3). Vertical bars represent the standard errors of treatment means

 
The effect of water deficit on total leaf number was not significant in 1997 ( , average of 20 leaves per plant), which agrees with the results of Bennett et al. (1989), Muchow and Carberry (1989), and Abrecht and Carberry (1993). However, in 1998, drought-stressed plants had 20 leaves, but the nonstressed ones had only 19 leaves . The Bt and non-Bt plants did not differ in total leaf number ( in 1997 and in 1998), and the water deficit x hybrid interaction was not significant for this plant characteristic ( in 1997 and in 1998).

Water deficit during the first ECB generation delayed tasseling by 3 d in 1998 , but did not have a significant effect in 1997 (Table 2) . There was no effect of water deficit during the second ECB generation since this treatment was imposed after the end of the vegetative period. The Bt and non-Bt plants did not have different tasseling or silking dates in either of the years. Silking occurred the same day or 1 d after tasseling for both years and for all treatments. The duration of the period from emergence to tasseling was 59 d (683 degree-days) in 1997 and 64 d (758 degree-days) in 1998. A difference of 5 d in the prediction of the date of tassel emergence is significant, particularly near tasseling when up to 8% of grain yield can be lost per day by soil water deficit (Shaw, 1988).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Source of variation, degrees of freedom, mean squares, and significance of treatment effects on selected phenological stages of Bt and non-Bt maize in 1997 and 1998

 
Plants stressed during the first ECB generation had significantly less leaf area than their nonstressed counterparts starting with Leaf 11 through 19 in 1997 and Leaf 14 through 18 in 1998 (Fig. 3) . This result agrees with NeSmith and Ritchie (1992) and Fortin and Edwards (1995), who found that water deficit caused slow leaf development and decreased leaf area expansion. As with leaf appearance rate, there was no difference in leaf area among plants stressed during the second ECB generation and the controls. Also, no significant difference was found between the Bt and non-Bt hybrids (P > 0.05).



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3 Effect of water deficit in (A) 1997 and (B) 1998 on the area of individual maize leaves with water deficit imposed during the first ECB generation (WD1) and with no water deficit (WD3). Vertical bars represent the standard errors of treatment means

 
Water deficit during the first ECB generation significantly reduced crop height only for a short period in 1997 when measurements were made on 9 July . In 1998, however, the effect lasted longer, with plants stressed during the first ECB generation remaining significantly shorter than the nonstressed plants from 12 to 22 July ( , respectively) (Fig. 4) . Gavloski et al. (1992) also observed a decrease in plant height following the withdrawal of water from one or more sections of the root system. The reduction of plant height by drought stress may affect the level of infestation by ECB in natural conditions, since ECB adults are attracted to the taller plants in an area during the first generation egg-laying period (Mason et al., 1996). We did not observe significant differences between the Bt and non-Bt hybrids for crop height.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4 Plant height development in 1997 and 1998 for maize with water deficit imposed during the first ECB generation (WD1) and with no water deficit (WD3). Vertical bars represent the standard errors of treatment means

 
Water deficit significantly reduced grain ( in 1997 and 0.01 in 1998) and biomass yield ( in 1997 and 1998) (Table 3) , and also the number of kernels per ear ( in 1997, and 0.0001 in 1998). The effect on the 100-seed weight was significant in 1998 only ( in 1997 and 0.002 in 1998). The lowest grain yields were observed with treatments WD1 and WD5 in 1997 and with treatments WD2 and WD5 in 1998. Treatments WD2 and WD5 were imposed immediately after tasseling and silking, phases known to be the most sensitive to water deficit regarding grain yield (Robins and Domingo, 1953; Denmead and Shaw, 1960; Claassen and Shaw, 1970b; Harder et al., 1982; Bennett et al., 1989; Grant et al., 1989; Sinclair et al., 1990).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Yield components of drought-stressed Bt and non-Bt maize plants in 1997 and 1998 (N was 94 in 1997 and 95 in 1998)

 
The Bt plants had greater grain and biomass yields than their non-Bt counterparts, but orthogonal contrasts showed significant differences only for biomass in 1997 and for grain in 1998 . Between varieties over both years, the CIBA varieties expressed the smallest grain or biomass yield loss when considering Bt and non-Bt designation. The biomass or grain dry matter losses ranged from 10 to 18% for NK varieties and 0 to 5% for CIBA varieties. For grain yield, this response seemed related to 100-seed weight because seed numbers were not significantly different (Table 3). The CIBA 100-seed weights were similar for Bt designations, whereas, 100-seed weights of NK non-Bt varieties averaged 9% lower than Bt counterparts. This response may be related to ECB tunneling damage, which will be discussed later.

Harvest index (grain yield/aboveground plant dry weight) was affected by water deficit only when it was imposed during anthesis (Table 3). Its value was 0.59 in 1997 and 0.53 in 1998 for nonstressed plants. However, with plants stressed at or after tasseling, it was as low as 0.31 in 1997 and 0.28 in 1998. The Bt and non-Bt plants did not differ in harvest index. Infestation with first generation ECB larvae did not result in any significant difference in stalk tunneling between water deficit treatments or hybrids (P > 0.05) (Table 4 and Fig. 5) . There also was no effect of water deficit on the second generation ECB tunneling, and the interaction with hybrid was not significant in 1997 nor 1998. In both 1997 and 1998, second generation ECB tunneling was greater than first generation tunneling (4.74 and 0.49 cm in 1997, 2.17 and 0.16 cm in 1998). This is probably due to the presence of DIMBOA (2,4-dimethyl-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazine-3-one), a naturally occurring chemical produced by most commercial maize hybrids that allows plants to combat first generation ECB attacks (Pedigo, 1996).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4 Source of variation, degrees of freedom, mean squares, and significance of treatment effects on corn borer tunneling of drought stressed Bt and non-Bt maize in 1997 and 1998

 


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5 European corn borer tunneling on Bt and non-Bt maize plants subjected to soil water deficit in (A) 1997 and (B) 1998

 
The difference between Bt and non-Bt hybrid tunneling amounts was not significant from first generation larvae ( in 1997 and in 1998), but significant from second generation larvae ( in 1997 and in 1998), with Bt plants affected the least (Fig. 5). Tunneling by second generation larvae averaged 2.01 and 7.47 cm in 1997 and 1.33 and 3.01 cm in 1998 for Bt and non-Bt plants, respectively. Indeed, Bode and Calvin (1990) indicated that yield loss per ECB larva was about 6 to 7% during the first generation and about 2 to 3% during the second generation.


   Conclusion
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion
REFERENCES
 
The results of this 2-yr study show that water deficit during the vegetative period results in a delay in leaf appearance for both Bt and non-Bt hybrids. Water deficit during the first ECB generation delayed tasseling by 3 d in 1998, but did not have a significant effect in 1997. The Bt and non-Bt plants did not have different tasseling or silking dates during the 2-yr study. Plants subjected to soil water deficit during this period had significantly less leaf area than did nonstressed ones. Also, the leaves with the largest area were bigger in 1998 than in 1997 for stressed and nonstressed plants, probably because of the slower leaf appearance rate in 1998. Water deficit reduced crop height both in 1997 and 1998. Leaf appearance dates, individual leaf areas, and crop height were not different between Bt and non-Bt plants. Water deficit significantly reduced grain and biomass yields and kernel number per ear during both years.

Infestation with first generation ECB larvae did not result in any significant difference in stalk tunneling among water deficit treatments or hybrids (Bt or non-Bt). Hybrids did differ in the amount of second ECB generation tunneling, with Bt plants affected the least. Bt plants had greater grain and biomass yields than their non-Bt counterparts, but these differences were significant only for biomass in 1997 and for grain in 1998. The largest differences in grain yield Bt or non-Bt response were associated with the NK variety. The cause for this response is unknown, but could relate to observed ECB tunneling damage. The NK varieties expressed no tunneling damage for Bt plants, whereas CIBA Bt plants did. Thus, the relative tunneling damage difference between Bt and non-Bt plants was probably greater for the NK variety than the CIBA variety. If the tunneling damage affected transport of dry matter to the filling kernel, it is noteworthy that CIBA 100-seed dry weights were quite similar between Bt and non-Bt plants; this was not true for the NK Bt and non-Bt plants.SAS Institute 1985


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was conducted by the senior author as part of his Ph.D. research under the sponsorship of the USAID-Mali SPARC project.


   NOTES
TOP
 NOTES
ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion
 REFERENCES
 
Iowa Agric. & Home Economics Exp. Stn. J. Paper no. J-18424. Project no. 2397.

Received for publication June 2, 1999.
   REFERENCES
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Conclusion
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
K. D. Subedi and B. L. Ma
Dry Matter and Nitrogen Partitioning Patterns in Bt and Non-Bt Near-Isoline Maize Hybrids
Crop Sci., May 31, 2007; 47(3): 1186 - 1192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
T. F. Stanger and J. G. Lauer
Corn Stalk Response to Plant Population and the Bt-European Corn Borer Trait
Agron. J., April 4, 2007; 99(3): 657 - 664.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
T. F. Stanger and J. G. Lauer
Optimum Plant Population of Bt and Non-Bt Corn in Wisconsin
Agron. J., June 5, 2006; 98(4): 914 - 921.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Environ. Qual.Home page
J. Poerschmann, A. Gathmann, J. Augustin, U. Langer, and T. Gorecki
Molecular Composition of Leaves and Stems of Genetically Modified Bt and Near-Isogenic Non-Bt Maize--Characterization of Lignin Patterns
J. Environ. Qual., August 9, 2005; 34(5): 1508 - 1518.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
B. L. Ma, K. D. Subedi, and L. M. Reid
Extent of Cross-Fertilization in Maize by Pollen from Neighboring Transgenic Hybrids
Crop Sci., July 1, 2004; 44(4): 1273 - 1282.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Exp BotHome page
M. J. d. Sousa-Majer, N. C. Turner, D. C. Hardie, R. L. Morton, B. Lamont, and T. J. V. Higgins
Response to water deficit and high temperature of transgenic peas (Pisum sativum L.) containing a seed-specific {alpha}-amylase inhibitor and the subsequent effects on pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L.) survival
J. Exp. Bot., February 1, 2004; 55(396): 497 - 505.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
H. A. Bruns and C. A. Abel
Nitrogen Fertility Effects on Bt {delta}-Endotoxin and Nitrogen Concentrations of Maize during Early Growth
Agron. J., January 1, 2003; 95(1): 207 - 211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Traore, S. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Traore, S. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Traore, S. B.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Crop Growth and Development
Right arrow Water Stress
Right arrow Maize
Right arrow Plant Disease
Right arrow Crop Genetics

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome