Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Physiological and yield responses of sweet corn (Zea mays L. saccharata) to growth enhancers under water stress conditions

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12831
Submitted
19 November 2025
Published
10-06-2026 — Updated on 06-07-2026
Versions

Abstract

Certain growth enhancers can mitigate the effects of drought stress and damage on sweet corn (Zea mays L. saccharata). For this purpose, a field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of several enhancers on the physiological characteristics, growth and yield of sweet corn under drought and saline soil conditions in a tropical region over 2 years. The factors included irrigation at 50, 65 and 80 % of the crop-available water content in the soil (no drought stress, mild drought stress and severe drought stress respectively) and growth promoters (control, superabsorbent A200 (SA200), polyacrylamide (PAM), humic acid (HA), smoke water (SW), salicylic acid (SA) and potassium silicate (PS). The experiment was designed as a split-plot in base on a randomised complete block design. The 2 year results showed that growth-enhancing treatments had positive and significant effects on superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT), proline, SPAD, root dry weight, relative growth rate (RGR), crop growth rate (CGR), biomass and cob yield under moderate and severe drought stress conditions. The effect of growth promoters on cob yield in conditions control, moderate and severe stress were between 9.45-12.5, 8.43-10.77 and 7.6-9.51 t ha-1 respectively. In general, SA200 is recommended for soil application, HA into irrigation system and SA for foliar application, to alleviate drought stress in sweet corn. So, these growth enhancers can be suggested as reducing the effect of drought stress for hot conditions and salty soil in the region.

References

  1. 1. Mousavi SMN, Illes A, Bojtor C, Miar Y, Shojaie SH, Nagy J, et al. Effect of harvest time on sugar content and carotenoid composition in different sweet maize hybrids. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):25758. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11680-w
  2. 2. Sidahmed HMI, Illés Á, Almahi A, Nagy J. Performance of agricultural factors on yield of sweet corn (Zea mays L. Saccharata). A review. Acta Agrar Debr. 2024;1:12830. https://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/1/12830
  3. 3. Dos Santos TB, Ribas AF, De Souza SGH, Budzinski IGF, Domingues DS. Physiological responses to drought, salinity and heat stress in plants: a review. Stresses. 2022;2(1):113-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2010009
  4. 4. Paranhos J, Foshee W, Coolong T, Heyes B, Salazar-Gutierrez M, Kesheimer K, et al. Characterization of sweet corn production in subtropical environmental conditions. Agriculture. 2023;13(6):1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061156
  5. 5. Seleiman MF, Al-Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, et al. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants. 2021;10(2):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020259
  6. 6. Ali S, Mir RA, Haque MA, Danishuddin, Almalki MA, Alfredan M, et al. Exploring physiological and molecular dynamics of drought stress responses in plants: challenges and future directions. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1565635. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1565635
  7. 7. Gusain S, Kumari K, Joshi R. Physiological, hormonal and molecular dynamics of root system architectural response to drought stress signaling in crops. Rhizosphere. 2024;31:100922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2024.100922
  8. 8. Kapoor D, Bhardwaj S, Landi M, Sharma A, Ramakrishnan M, Sharma A. The impact of drought in plant metabolism: How to exploit tolerance mechanisms to increase crop production. Appl Sci. 2020;10(16):5692. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165692
  9. 9. Behera S, Mahanwar P. Superabsorbent polymers in agriculture and their environmental impacts: a review. Polym Plast Technol Mater. 2020;59(4):341-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/25740881.2019.1647239
  10. 10. Bandak S, Naeini SARM, Zeinali E, Bandak I. Effects of superabsorbent polymer A200 on soil characteristics and rainfed winter wheat growth (Triticum aestivum L.). Arab J Geosci. 2021;14(8):712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06824-x
  11. 11. Shaheen W, Iqbal MM, Qudrat L. Development of cellulose-based superabsorbent polymers: a review. Cellulose. 2025;1-35.
  12. 12. Kępczyński J, Kępczyńska E. Plant-derived smoke and karrikin 1 in seed priming and seed biotechnology. Plants. 2023;12(12):2378. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122378
  13. 13. Flematti GR, Dixon KW, Smith SM. What are karrikins and how were they ‘discovered’ by plants? BMC Biol. 2015;13(1):108. ttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-015-0219-0
  14. 14. Shekari F, Mirzaie H, Delavar MA, Afsahi K, Mastinu A. Salicylic acid improved lead and zinc stress tolerance in maize by enhancement of growth and physiological characters. Plant Growth Regul. 2025;1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-025-01346-y
  15. 15. Xin L, Wang J, Yang Q. Exogenous salicylic acid alleviates water deficit stress by protecting photosynthetic system in maize seedlings. Agronomy. 2023;13(9):2443. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092443
  16. 16. Al Murad M, Khan AL, Muneer S. Silicon in horticultural crops: cross-talk, signaling and tolerance mechanism under salinity stress. Plants. 2020;9(4):460. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9040460
  17. 17. Eryiğit T, Husamalddin AH. Effects of different humic acid doses on yield and quality properties of corn (Zea mays L.) in Iraq-Sulaymaniyah conditions. J Inst Sci Technol. 2023;13(2):1377–93. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1241745
  18. 18. Guo Y, Ma Z, Ren B, Zhao B, Liu P, Zhang J. Effects of humic acid added to controlled-release fertilizer on summer maize yield, nitrogen use efficiency and greenhouse gas emission. Agriculture. 2022;12(4):448. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040448
  19. 19. Sohag AAM, Tahjib-Ul-Arif M, Brestic M, Afrin S, Sakil MA, Hossain MT, et al. Exogenous salicylic acid and hydrogen peroxide attenuate drought stress in rice. Plant Soil Environ. 2020;66(1):7-13. https://doi.org/10.17221/472/2019-PSE
  20. 20. Nabi F, Sarfaraz A, Kama R, Kanwal R, Li H. Structure-based function of humic acid in abiotic stress alleviation in plants: a review. Plants. 2025;14(13):1916. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14131916
  21. 21. Noroozi Shahri F, Jalali Honarmand S, Saeidi M, Mondani F. Improving some biochemical characteristics of lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.) with phytohormones-like activity of plant-derived smoke. Iran J Field Crop Sci. 2022;53(4):229-44.
  22. 22. Haranal K, Hanumanthappa M, Mavarkar NS, Mopagar MM. Humic acid foliation and nutrient levels concerning yield and quality of sweet corn (Zea mays L. convar. saccharata). J Exp Agric Int. 2024;46(8):535-42. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i82733
  23. 23. Saxton KE, Rawls WJ. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2006;70(5):1569-78. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0117
  24. 24. Abdullah A, Azrai M, Meida I. Effectiveness and recommendation of NPK-compound fertilization on maize. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2021;911(1):012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/911/1/012031
  25. 25. Johansson LH, Borg LH. A spectrophotometric method for determination of catalase activity in small tissue samples. Anal Biochem. 1988;174(1):331-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(88)90554-4
  26. 26. Reis Junior FBD, Machado CTDT, Machado AT, Sodek L. Inoculação de Azospirillum amazonense em dois genótipos de milho sob diferentes regimes de nitrogênio. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2008;32:1139-46. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832008000300022
  27. 27. Zeraik AE, Souza FSAD, Fatibello-Filho O, Leite OD. Desenvolvimento de um spot test para o monitoramento da atividade da peroxidase em um procedimento de purificação. Quim Nova. 2008;31:731-34. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422008000400003
  28. 28. Ábrahám E, Hourton-Cabassa C, Erdei L, Szabados L. Methods for determination of proline in plants. Methods Mol Biol. 2010;639:317-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-702-0_20
  29. 29. Limantara L, Dettling M, Indrawati R, Brotosudarmo THP. Analysis on the chlorophyll content of commercial green leafy vegetables. Procedia Chem. 2015;14:225-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proche.2015.03.032
  30. 30. Jing B, Shi W. Root growth responses to water and nitrogen inputs drive maize economic income and water-nitrogen productivity. Agric Water Manag. 2025;317:109649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109649
  31. 31. Hoffmann WA, Poorter H. Avoiding bias in calculations of relative growth rate. Ann Bot. 2002;90(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf140
  32. 32. Gou C, Huang Q, Rady MM, Wang L, Ihtisham M, El-Awady HH, et al. Integrative application of silicon and/or proline improves sweet corn (Zea mays L. saccharata) production and antioxidant defense system under salt stress condition. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):18315. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45003-8
  33. 33. Renzetti M, Funck D, Trovato M. Proline and ROS: A unified mechanism in plant development and stress response? Plants. 2025;14:2. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14010002
  34. 34. Rao MJ, Duan M, Zhou C, Jiao J, Cheng P, Yang L, et al. Antioxidant defense system in plants: Reactive oxygen species production, signaling and scavenging during abiotic stress-induced oxidative damage. Horticulturae. 2025;11(5):477. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11050477
  35. 35. Canellas LP, Olivares FL, Aguiar NO, Jones DL, Nebbioso A, Mazzei P, et al. Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci Hortic. 2015;196:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.013
  36. 36. Abu-Ria ME, Elghareeb EM, Shukry WM, Abo-Hamed SA, Ibraheem F. Mitigation of drought stress in maize and sorghum by humic acid: differential growth and physiological responses. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24(1):514. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05184-4
  37. 37. Ghasemzadeh A, Jaafar HZ. Interactive effect of salicylic acid on some physiological features and antioxidant enzymes activity in ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Molecules. 2013;18(5):5965-79. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules18055965
  38. 38. Khan P, Abdelbacki AM, Albaqami M, Jan R, Kim KM. Proline promotes drought tolerance in maize. Biology. 2025;14(1):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14010041
  39. 39. Bashir SS, Hussain A, Hussain SJ, Wani OA, Zahid Nabi S, Dar NA, et al. Plant drought stress tolerance: Understanding its physiological, biochemical and molecular mechanisms. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2021;35(1):1912-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2021.2020161
  40. 40. Hussein SA, Hamed MF, El-Metwally I, Saudy HS, Shahin M. Maize yield and quality as affected by salicylic or ascorbic acids under irrigation regimes. Arab Univ J Agric Sci. 2025;33(1):49-57. https://doi.org/10.21608/ajs.2025.360885.1597
  41. 41. Shivashankar K, Potdar MP, Gawdiya S, Golshetti A, Kanade AK, Balol G, et al. SPAD dynamics in maize crop with precision nitrogen management under rain-fed and irrigated conditions. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):22842. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05255-y
  42. 42. Farooq M, Hussain M, Wakeel A, Siddique KH. Salt stress in maize: effects, resistance mechanisms and management. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2015;35(2):461-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0287-0
  43. 43. Bhattacharya A. Effect of soil water deficit on growth and development of plants: a review. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2485:393-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6276-5_5
  44. 44. Mehrkish M, Jalali Honarmand S, Ghobadi ME, Amerian M. Influence the foliar application of smoke-water and Fe, Zn, Ti nanoparticles on some qualitative and quantitative characteristics of sage (Salvia officinalis L.). N Z J Crop Hortic Sci. 2024;1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2024.2398049
  45. 45. Mohebbi M, Ghobadi ME, Chaghazardi HR. The effect of seed treatment with salicylic acid, humic acid and zinc on the yield of durum wheat under rainfed conditions. Cereal Biotechnol Biochem. 2022;1(3):318-34.
  46. 46. Niu J, Dai H, Li X, Wang W. Biodegradable superabsorbent polymers for agricultural applications: A review. Carbohydr Polym. 2023;298:121060.
  47. 47. García AC, Santos LA, Izquierdo FG, Sperandio MVL, Castro RN, Zonta E. Humic acids: Biostimulants for sustainable agriculture and environmental safety. Environ Res. 2024;250:118532.
  48. 48. Khan MIR, Khan NA, Al-Ghamdi AA. Salicylic acid mediated plant defense and environmental stress tolerance: An eco-friendly approach. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2023;29(4):645–58.
  49. 49. Savvas D, Ntatsi G. Biostimulant properties of silicon in horticulture: Silicon fertilization and its environmental safety. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1234567.
  50. 50. Light ME, Daws MI, Van Staden J. Smoke-derived butenolides: Promoting seed germination and sustainable crop production with minimal environmental impact. S Afr J Bot. 2022;148:120-28.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.