Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Effect of Different Plant Arrangements on Maize Morphology and Forage Quality Cover

Effect of Different Plant Arrangements on Maize Morphology and Forage Quality

Open Access
|Sep 2016

References

  1. ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS. 2005. Official methods of analysis, 18th Ed. Gaithersburg, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC International.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE. 2015. Statistical yearbook of the Czech Republic 2015. Czech Statistical Office. 799 pp. ISBN 978-80-250-2638-0.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. STATISTICA, version 12. 2013. Data analysis software system, StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, USA.
  25. STONE, P. – PEARSON, A. – SORENSEN, I. – ROGERS. B. 2000. Effect of row spacing and plant population on maize yield and quality. In 30th Joint NZIAS/NZSHS Annual Conference, Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zeland, vol. 30, pp. 67‒75.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agri-2016-0007 | Journal eISSN: 1338-4376 | Journal ISSN: 0551-3677
Language: English
Page range: 62 - 71
Submitted on: May 30, 2016
|
Published on: Sep 10, 2016
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2016 Jana Jirmanová, Pavel Fuksa, Josef Hakl, Václav Brant, Jaromír Šantrůček, published by National Agricultural and Food Centre
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.