Effect of Different Plant Arrangements on Maize Morphology and Forage Quality

Jirmanová, Jana; Fuksa, Pavel; Hakl, Josef; Brant, Václav; Šantrůček, Jaromír

doi:10.1515/agri-2016-0007

Abstract

A study was carried out in Central Bohemia to understand the effect of row spacing and stand density on plant morphology, productivity and quality of silage maize in two row spacing treatments (0.70 m and 0.35 m) at two stand densities (92,000 plants/ha and 110,000 plants/ha). The results of the study showed that row spacing and stand density had no effect on plant height or weight; however, significantly higher ear ratio and dry matter content was found in narrow rows at 110,000 plants/ha. It was observed that plant morphology was affected more by the interaction between row spacing and stand density than by a single effect of tested factors. Significantly higher dry matter yield was recorded at higher stand density, but there was no row spacing × stand density interaction. Row spacing had no impact on the whole plant neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content, crude protein of stover and starch content of ear, while narrow rows resulted in almost significantly higher stover NDF content. Our results suggest that narrow rows could be advantageous for maize morphology and quality in cases where higher stand density is applied.

References

ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS. 2005. Official methods of analysis, 18^th Ed. Gaithersburg, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC International.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BAGHDADI, A. – HALIM, R.A. – MAJIDIAN, M. – DAUD, W.N.W. – AHMAD, I. 2012. Plant density and tillage effects on forage corn quality. In Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 10 no. 2, pp. 366–370.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BALKCOM, K.S. – SATTERWHITE, J.L. – ARRIAGA, F.J. – PRICE, A.J. – VAN SANTEN, E. 2011. Conventional and glyphosate-resistant maize yields across plant densities in single- and twin-row configurations. In Field Crops Research, 120, no. 3, pp. 330‒337. 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.10.013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BARBIERI, P. – ECHARTE, L. – DELLA MAGGIORA, A. – SADRAS, V.O. – ECHEVERRIA, H. – ANDRADE, F.H. 2012. Maize evapotranspiration and water-use efficiency in response to row spacing. In Agronomy Journal, 104 no. 4, pp. 939–944. 10.2134/agronj2012.0014
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BARON, V.S. – NAJDA, H.G. – STEVENSON, F.C. 2006. Influence of population density, row spacing and hybrid on forage corn yield and nutritive value in a cool-season environment. In Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86 no. 4, pp. 1131–1138. 10.4141/P05-136
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
BERES, B.L. – BREMER, E. – VAN DASSELAAR, C. 2008. Response of irrigated corn silage to seeding rate and row spacing in southern Alberta. In Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 88 no. 4, pp. 713–716. 10.4141/CJPS08012
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ÇARPICI, E.B. – CELIK, N. – BAYRAM, G. 2010. Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by plant density and nitrogen rate. In Tourkish Journal of Field Crops, 15 no. 2, pp. 128–132.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
COX, J.C. – CHERNEY, D.J.R. 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and nitrogen effects on corn silage. In Agronomy Journal, 93 no. 3, pp. 597–602. 10.2134/agronj2001.933597x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CUSICANQUI, J.A. – LAUER, J.G. 1999. Plant density and hybrid influence on corn forage yield and quality. In Agronomy Journal, 91 no. 6, pp. 911–915. 10.2134/agronj1999.916911x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE. 2015. Statistical yearbook of the Czech Republic 2015. Czech Statistical Office. 799 pp. ISBN 978-80-250-2638-0.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GÖZÜBENLI, H. 2010. Influence of planting patterns and plant density on the performance of maize hybrids in the eastern Mediterranean conditions. In International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 12 no. 4, pp. 556–560.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
GÖZÜBENLI, H. – KILINC, M. – SENER, O. – KONUSKAN, O. 2004. Effects of single and twin row planting on yield and yield components in maize. In Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 3 no. 2, pp. 203–206.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
IPTAS, S. – ACAR, A.A. 2006. Effects of hybrid and row spacing on maize forage yield and quality. In Plant, Soil and Environment, 52 no. 11, pp. 515–552.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
IUSS Working Group WRB. 2014. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources No. 106. FAO, Rome.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
LYNCH, J.P. – O’KIELY, P. – DOYLE, E.M. 2012. Yield, quality, and ensilage characteristics of whole-crop maize and of the cob and stover components: harvest date and hybrid effects. In Grass and Forage Science, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 472–487. 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00868.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MAQBOOL, M.M. – TANVEER, A. – ATA, Z. – AHMAD, R. 2006. Growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) as affected by row spacing and weed competition durations. In Pakistan Journal of Botany, 38 no. 4, pp. 1227–1236.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MARSALIS, M.A. – ANGADI, S.V. – CONTRERAS-GOVEA, F.E. 2010. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of corn, forage sorghum, and BMR forage sorghum at different plant populations and nitrogen rates. In Field Crops Research, 116 no. 1‒2, pp. 52–57. 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.11.009
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MILLNER, J.P. – VILLAVER, R. 2005. The yield and nutritive value of maize hybrids grown for silage. In New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 48 no. 1, pp. 101–108. 10.1080/00288233.2005.9513637
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MODOLO, A.J. – CARNIELETTO, R. – KOLLING, E.M. – TROGELLO, E. – SGARBOSSA, M. 2010. Performance of corn hybrids at the Southwest of Parana under different row spacing. In Revista Ciencia Agronomica, 41 no. 3, pp. 435–441. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-66902010000300016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
NOVACEK, M.J. – MASON, S.C. – GALUSHA, T.D. – YASEEN, M. 2013. Twin rows minimally impact irrigated maize yield, morphology, and lodging. In Agronomy Journal, 105 no. 1, pp. 268–276. 10.2134/agronj2012.0301
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
RAMEZANI, M. – ABANDANI, S.R.R. – MOBASSER, H.R. – AMIRI, E. 2011. Effects of row spacing and plant density on silage yield of corn (Zea mays L. cv. sc 704) in two plant pattern in North of Iran. In African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6 no. 5, pp. 1128–1133. 10.5897/AJAR10.898
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ROBLES, M. – CIAMPITTI, I.A. – VYN, T.J. 2012. Responses of maize hybrids to twin-row spatial arrangement at multiple plant densities. In Agronomy Journal, 104 no. 6, pp. 1747–1756. 10.2134/agronj2012.0231
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
SKONIESKI, F.R. – NÖRNBERG, J.L. – KESSLER, J.D. – DE DAVID, D.B. – DE AZEVEDO, E.B. – BRÜNING, G. – PIMENTEL, C.M.M. 2014. Corn plant arrangement and its effect on silage quality. In Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 43 no. 3, pp. 114–119. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982014000300002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
STATISTICA, version 12. 2013. Data analysis software system, StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, USA.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
STONE, P. – PEARSON, A. – SORENSEN, I. – ROGERS. B. 2000. Effect of row spacing and plant population on maize yield and quality. In 30^th Joint NZIAS/NZSHS Annual Conference, Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zeland, vol. 30, pp. 67‒75.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
STRIEDER, M.L. – da SILVA, P.R.F. – RAMBO, L. – SANGOI, L. – da SILVA, A.A. – ENDRIGO, P.C. – JANDREY, D.B. 2008. Crop management systems and maize grain yield under narrow row spacing. In Scientia Agricola, 65 no. 4, pp. 346–353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162008000400004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ter BRAAK, C.J.F. – ŠMILAUER, P. 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, USA.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
TURGUT, I. – DUMAN, A. – BILGILI, U. – ACIKGOZ, E. 2005. Alternate row spacing and plant density effects on forage and dry matter yield of corn hybrids (Zea mays L.). In Journal Agronomy and Crop Science, 191 no. 2, pp. 146–141. 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2004.00146.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
WIDDICOMBE, W.D. – THELEN, K.D. 2002. Row width and plant density effect on corn forage hybrids. In Agronomy Journal, 94 no. 2, pp. 326–330. 10.2134/agronj2002.3260
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
ZAMIR, M.S.I. – AHMAD, A.H. – JAVEED, H.M.R. – LATIF, T. 2011. Growth and yield behaviour of two maize hybrids (Zea mays L.) towards different plant spacing. In Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova, 44 no. 2, pp. 33–40.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Effect of Different Plant Arrangements on Maize Morphology and Forage Quality

Abstract

Paradigm

My account