Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:48:54.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Varying Plant Density on a Tillering Variety of Maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Lloyd A. Downey
Lloyd A. Downey
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O. Division of Irrigation Research, Griffith, N.S.W. 2680, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Results from an experiment with maize (variety NEH 1151) at three plant densities indicated that normally favourable environmental conditions promoted tillering and it was difficult to maintain the desired tiller densities. The higher densities produced more vegetative dry matter but less grain than the lower densities. In a second experiment, where tillers were removed from the plants, there was no advantage because the remaining tillers grew larger to compensate for the removal. It is concluded that it is desirable to breed or select for non-tillering varieties where other management parameters can be controlled.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 25 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cackett, K. E. (1964). Rhod. J. agric. Res. 2, 56.Google Scholar
Cunard, A. C. (1967). World Crops 19, (6), 45.Google Scholar
Downey, L. A. (1971a). J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci. 37, 138.Google Scholar
Downey, L. A. (1971b). Expl. Agric. 7, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, L. A. (1971c). Agron. J. 63, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungan, G. H., Lang, A. L. & Pendleton, J. W. (1958). Adv. Agron. 10, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, D. M. & Hanks, R. J. (1967). In Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. (Ed. Hagan, R. M., Haise, H. R. & Edminster, T. W..) Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Gonske, R. G. & Keeney, D. R. (1969). Agron. J. 61, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, A. S. & Yunger, J. A. (1955). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 19, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A. L., Pendleton, J. W. & Dungan, G. H. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveday, J., Saunt, J. E., Fleming, P. M. & Muirhead, W. A. (1970). Aust.J. Expl. Agric. Anim. Husb. 10, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendleton, J. W. & Seif, R. D. (1961). Crop Sci. 1, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutger, J. N. & Crowder, L. V. (1967). Crop Sci. 7, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slatyer, R. O. & Barrs, H. D. (1965). In Methodology of Plant Eco-Physiology, Proceedings of the Montpellier Symposium U.N.E.S.C.O. Arid Zone Research 25, 331.Google Scholar
Snell, R. S. (1965). Agron. J. 57, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickler, F. C. (1964). Agron. J. 56, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, H. C., Mills, H. S. & Wessels, P. H. (1930). Bull. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn. 509.Google Scholar
Timmons, D. R., Holt, R. F. & Moraghan, J. T. (1966). Agron.J. 58, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar