Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:12:10.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant density and yield of grain maize in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Summary

Results from 10 field experiments are reported. Inra 200, the standard variety in official maize grain trials in Britain, was grown in six of the trials; comparative information was obtained on a range of competitive commercial hybrids and an experimental, early flowering, hybrid. The final plant densities most commonly involved ranged from 5 to 20 plants/m2, with extremes of 2 and 30 plants/m2. The effects of spatial arrangement were also considered in multifactorial or systematic designs; in general, yields increased slightly with more even spacing but no evidence was adduced that spacing, within the limits likely to be encountered in commercial practice, would significantly modify interpretations of density effects.

In all varieties tested, a satisfactory model for the response in yield of grain to changes in plant density was 1/y = a + bx + cx2, where y = grain yield/plant and x = density. Estimated parameter values, however, were not the same for all varieties and significant genotype × density interactions were obtained.

Grain yield/unit area in Inra 200 was maximal at densities of 8–10 plants/m2, but the response curve did not have a pronounced peak; differences in average yieldat densities ranging from 6 to 14 plants/m2 were less than 6%, and yield at 20 plants/m2 was about 80% of the maximum. Other flint × dent hybrids grown commercially for grain in northern areas (Anjou 210, L.G. 11, Warwick SL 209) reached maximum grain yield/unit area at lower densities (6–8 plants/m2), and the decline in yield with increasing density was much more marked than in Inra 200. In contrast, an earlier flowering, shorter growing, experimental hybrid (ARC 51 A) did not reach maximum yield until density was raised to 14 plants/m2, and was even more tolerant of high plant densities than Inra 200. With increasing plant density the number of ears/plant declined, falling below 1–0 in Inra 200 at densities in excess of 10 plants/m2, and averaging about 0–8 at plants/m2. Over the range 6–20 plants/m2 shelling percentage was reduced by no more than 4%, but water content of the ear (grain plus rachis) increased significantly with density. In the very early hybrid, ARC 51A, the difference in water content of the ear at 6 and 20 plants/m2 was less than 3%, but in Inra 200 it averaged about 8% and in varieties less tolerant of high densities it was often ofthe order of 15%. These results could be related to the delaying effects of increasing density on time of silk emergence. Relatively, time of pollen shed was little affected by density changes. In Inra 200 the difference in time between mid-anthesis and mid-silk was about 7 days more at 20 plants/m2 than at 6 plants/m2 while in Anjou 210 and Kelvedon 59A the comparable increase was 14 days.

The practical significance of the findings is discussed in relation to current grain and silage maize production practices, and to future breeding and testing programmes in Northern Europe.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , December 1973 , pp. 455 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Adelana, B. O. & Milbourn, G. M. (1972). The growth of maize. I. The effect of plant density on yield of digestible dry matter and grain. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1967). Systematic designs for spacing experiments. Expl Agric. 3, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloc, D. (1971). La production de mais-fourrage. Bull. Tech. d'lnf. Nov/Dec 933–1000.Google Scholar
Brown, D. M. (1969). Heat units for corn production in southern Ontario. Ontario Dep. of Agric. and Fd Inf. Leaflet Agdex 111/31.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1971). Plant density and yield of shoot dry material in maize in England. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77, 175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1972 a). Ripening in maize: interrelationships between time, water content and weight of dry material in ripening grain of a flint × dent hybrid (Inra 200). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79, 225–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1972 b). Ripening of grain maize in England: varietal differences in ripening patterns. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79, 235–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesneau, J. C. (1971). Pour bien réussir la culture du mais-ensilage. Cultivar no. 28, 1–5.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crop and pasture plants. Adv. Agron. 15, 1–118.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gross, F. (1970). Einfluss des Erntezeitpunktes auf den Futterwert von Maisgarfutter. Das wirtschaftseigene Futter 16, 306–36.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1960). Plant population and crop yield. Fld Crop Abstr. 13, 159–67, 247–54.Google Scholar
Hough, M. (1970). Accumulated temperature above 10° C in relation to maize. Agric. Memo. 346. Met. Office, Bracknell, England.Google Scholar
ITCF (1970). Les Variétés de Mais, résultats pluriannuels. Institut Tech. des Céréales et des Fourrages, Assoc. Gén. des Producteurs de Mais, pp. 46.Google Scholar
Klosterman, E. (1963). Full utilization of the corn plant. Proc. Ann. Hybrid Corn Industry-Research Conf. 18, 90–4.Google Scholar
MAFF (1969). Maize. Agric. Fish Fd Short term leaflet no. 93.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1962). New kinds of systematic designs for spacing experiments. Biometrics 18, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1966). Inverse polynomials, a group of multifactor response functions. Biometrics 22, 128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netherlands (1971). Mais voor de korrel. Min. van Landbouw en Visserij, Vlugschrift voor de landbouw nr. 170, pp. 12.Google Scholar
Netherlands (1972). Snijmais. Min. van Landbouw en Visserij, Vlugschrift voor de landbouw nr. 192, pp. 15.Google Scholar
Rintelen, P. (1971). Mais – Ein Handbuch über Produktionstechnik und Okonomik. Frankfurt (Main): DLG-Verlag, p. 290.Google 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 State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Stinson, H. T. & Moss, D. N. (1960). Some effects of shade upon corn hybrids tolerant and intolerant of dense plantings. Agron. J. 52, 482–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voldeng, H. D. (1971). Factors affecting the growth of Zea mays L. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, England.Google 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. Landbouwk. Onderz. 66, 8, 1–81.Google Scholar
Zscheischler, J. & Gross, F. (1966). Mais – Anbau und Verwertung. Frankfurt (Main): DLG–Verlag, p. 144.Google Scholar