Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:28:00.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weather factors affecting the development of maize from sowing to flowering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. N. Hough
M. N. Hough
Affiliation:
Agricultural Branch, Meteorological Office, London Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The phenological development from sowing to flowering of the eaxly maize hybrid INRA 200 is related to the weather conditions. Plot trial data from Wytham, near Oxford, England, and weather information from that and nearby sites formed the basic data.

The mean rate of development per day from sowing to emergence is related by linear correlation analysis to the mean values of soil temperature at 5 cm depth and soil moisture deficit. A range of temperature thresholds for emergence development exist, which depend upon the soil moisture, and which differ from the true physiological threshold.

Between omergence and flowering the mean rate of development per day is related by linear correlation analysis to mean air temperature, solar radiation and potential transpiration estimated from weather data. All correlations are significant, but the parameters which combine radiation and temperature are statistically better.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 325 - 331
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

Arnold, C. Y. (1959). The determination and significance of the base temperature in a linear heat unit system. Proc. am. Soc. hort. Sci. 74, 430.Google Scholar
Brown, D. M. (1969). Heat units for corn in Southern Ontario. Ontario Department of Agriculture and Food, Information Leaflet, 04 1969.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1968). The influence of date of sowing on development and yield of maize in England. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirkov, Yu I. (1965). Agrometeorologioal indices in the development and formation of maize crops. Agric. Met. 2, 121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, H. H. (1955). Rep. Rothamsted Exp. Stn., 1955.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1965). Light distribution and photosynthesis in field crops. Ann. Bot. N.S. 29, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1966). Physical limitations to crop growth. Agric. Prog. 41.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. W. (1968). A biometeorological time scale for a cereal crop involving day and night temperatures and photoperiod. Int. J. Biomet. 12, (3), 191–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. P. (1958). Farming Weather. London: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
Thornthwaite, C. W. & Mather, J. R. (1954). Climate in relation to crops. Met. Monogr. 2 (8), 1–10.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, C. H. M. (1966). Potential evaporation: the combination concept and its experimental verification. Am. Geophys. Un. Wat. Resources Res. 2 (3), 455–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wit, C. T. de, Brouwer, R. & Penning de Vries, F. W. T. (1971). A dynamic model of plant and crop growth. In Potential Crop Production (ed. Wareing, P. F. and Cooper, J. P.), pp. 387. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar