Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:16:07.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant density and yield of shoot dry material in maize in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. Bunting
E. S. Bunting
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Yields of shoot dry material of maize at harvest in September or October are reported for 19 experiments involving differing plant densities within the range 3–36 pl/m2. The experiments were conducted at the Oxford University Field Station on a freely drained clay loam soil, adequately supplied with nutrients, in the years 1953–55, 1957–60, 1962–70.

In one experiment, in the very dry season of 1964, yield/unit area recorded at a density of 14 pl/m2 was significantly higher than that obtained with a density of 31 pl/m3, but in all other experiments a satisfactory fit to the data was obtained with the asymptotic relationship between yield/unit area and density given by the equation w-1 = α+βρ, where w = weight per plant and ρ = density/unit area. The values of the parameters in this model give an indication of asymptotic yield (β-l) and of potential yield per plant when free from competitive stress (α-1). The estimated values of the parameters are given for the individual experiments, and comparisons are then made between the estimates obtained for contrasting varieties in seven experiments and for relatively early flowering European hybrids (Foliant & Inra 200) in ten different seasons.

In direct comparisons between varieties, similar estimates of β were obtained for a very late variety (White Horsetooth) and much earlier flowering varieties of American (Wis. 275A) or European (Foliant) origin, but estimated values of α for White Horsetooth were lower than for Foliant and much lower than for Wis. 275A. Mean parameter values have been used to predict yield response to density in the differing varieties and the practical implications discussed.

Estimated values of β in the model fitted to data for early European hybrids in differing seasons indicate that asymptotic yield of shoot dry material will be sharply lower in dry seasons, averaging 142 hkg/ha, than in seasons of more adequate rainfall, with an average of 187 hkg/ha. Values of a, however, were lower in the drier seasons, and it is suggested that this reflects the fact that drier seasons in Britain are normally warmer.

Differences in spatial arrangement of plants were obtained by variations in row width, between 30 and 100 cm, or by changes in rectangularity – the ratio of the distances between rows and between plants in the row – from 1 to 9. Within these limits the pattern of yield response to density was not significantly affected, and at densities of 10–15 pl/m2 the average increment in yield associated with more even spacing was less than 5%.

From the viewpoint of productivity, the predicted yield/density response curves show that a density of at least 10 pl/m2 is required for maize grown for fodder or silage in this country and, under irrigation or in areas where rainfall is less likely to be limiting, a density of 15 pl/m2 is preferable. Information on the effect of plant density on quality components in maize forage is surprisingly limited, but it is suggested that the fear of serious lodging at very high plant populations, rather than any possible decline in quality, is the main deterrent to further exploitation of environmental resources by increasing density.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , October 1971 , pp. 175 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Alessi, J. & Power, J. F. (1965). Influence of moisture, plant population and nitrogen on dryland corn in northern plains. Agron J. 57, 611–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. A., Hentges, J. F., Robertson, W. K., Barden, G. A.& McCall, J. T. (1963). Composition and digestibility of corn silage as affected by fertilizer rate and plant population. J. Anim. Sci. 22, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W. R. (1956). Maize for fodder and silage. Rep. 9th Hybrid Maize Meeting. F.A.O. Rome.Google Scholar
Becker, W. R. (1958). The influence of variety, stage of maturity and cultural practices on yield and quality of maize for silage. Rep. 10th Hybrid Maize Meeting. F.A.O. Rome.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. & Nelder, J. A. (1960). Plant population and crop yield. Nature, Lond. 188, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1967). Systematic designs for spacing experiments. Expl. Agric. 3, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Willey, L. A. (1959). The cultivation of maize for fodder and ensilage. Part II. The effect of changes in plant density. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 313–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caputa, J. (1969). Relation de rendement entre l'épi et la plante chez le mais. Revue suisse Agric. 1, 18–22.Google Scholar
Coppock, C. E. & Stone, J. B. (1968). Corn silage in the ration of dairy cattle: A review. Cornell Misc. Bull. 89.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. (1967). Standraum und Stoffproduktion bei Mais Z. Acker-u. PflBau. 125, 232–52.Google Scholar
Dungan, G. H., Lang, A. L. & Pendleton, J. W. (1958). Corn plant population in relation to soil productivity. Adv. Agron. 10, 435–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddowes, M. (1969). Physiological studies of competition in Zea maysL. II. Effect of competition among maize plants. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farazdaghi, H. (1968). Some aspects of the interaction between irrigation and plant density in sugar beet. Ph.D. Thesis, Reading University, England.Google Scholar
Gudknecht, H. & Gysel, A. (1954). Silomaisversuchemit verschiedenen Sorten und Standweiten. Mitt.schweiz. Landw. 2, 69–79.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1960a). Plant population and crop yield. Nature, Lond. 186, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, R. (1960b). Plant population and crop yield. Fld Crop Abstr. 13, 159–67, 247–54.Google Scholar
Loomis, R. S., Williams, W. A., Duncan, W. G., Dovrat, A. & Nunez, A. F. (1968). Quantitative descriptions of foliage display and light absorption in field communities of corn plants. Crop Sci. 8, 352–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R. (1970). Plant density and crop yield. Appl. Statist. 19, 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandpuri, K. S. (1963). Effect of different plant populations and nitrogen levels on the yield and protein content of corn silage. Indian J. Agron. 7, 319—25.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1962). New kinds of systematic designs for spacing experiments. Biometrics 18, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1963). Yield-density relations and Jarvis's lucerne data. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 427–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1966). Inverse polynomials, a useful group of multifactor response functions. Biometrics 22, 128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevens, W. B. & Dungan, G. H. (1942). Yields of corn hybrids harvested for silage. Bull. III. agric. Exp. Stn, p. 494.Google Scholar
Norden, A. J. (1964). Response of corn to population, bed height and genotype. 1. Root development. Agron J. 56, 269–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, F. G. (1967). Factors affecting nutritive value of corn and sorghum silage. J. Dairy Sci. 50, 403–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossman, E. C. & Cook, R. L. (1966). Soil preparation and date, rate and pattern of planting. In Advances in Corn Production, edited by Pierre, W. H., Aldrich, S. A. and Martin, W. P. Iowa, U.S.A.: Iowa State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Rutger, J. N. (1969). Relationship of corn silage yields to maturity. Agron J. 61, 68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutger, J. N. & Crowder, J. V. (1967 a). Effect of high plant density on silage and grain yields of six corn hybrids. Crop Sci. 7, 182–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutger, J. N. & Crowder, J. V. (1967b). Effect of population and row width on corn silage yields. Agron J. 59, 475–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, W. (1961). Mehrfaktorielle Versuche zur Anbautechnik beim Silomais. Z. Acker-u. PflBau. 113, 243–62.Google Scholar
Shinozaki, K. & Kira, T. (1956). Intraspecifio competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the CD effect. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka Cy Univ. D7, 35–72.Google Scholar
Termunde, D. E., Shank, D. B. & Dirks, V. A. (1963) Effect of population levels on yield and maturity of maize hybrids grown on Northern Gt. Plains. Agron J. 55, 550–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. J. & Rogers, H. H. (1968). Yield and quality components in maize grown for silage. J. agric Sci., Camb. 71, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Heath, S. B. (1969). The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron 21, 281–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, C. T. (1960). On competition. Versl. Land- bouwk. Onderz. 66.8, 1–81.Google Scholar