research article

Study and Determination of the Best Plant Density and Planting Patterns of Silage Corn (Zea mays L.), H.S.C. 704 Cultivar

Alireza Saberi*
Department of Seed & Plant Improvement Research, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Golestan Province, Gorgan, Iran

*Corresponding authors: Alireza Saberi, Department of Seed & Plant Improvement Research, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Golestan Province, Gorgan, S.P.I.DEP. P.O. Box; 49165/363, Iran. Tel: +981713350063-64; Email: alireza_sa70@yahoo.com

Received Date: 15 December, 2017; Accepted Date: 05 January, 2018; Published Date: 15 January, 2018

Citation: Saberi A (2018) Study and Determination of the Best Plant Density and Planting Patterns of Silage Corn (Zea mays L.), H.S.C. 704 Cultivar. Int J Genom Data Min 2018: 120. DOI: 10.29011/2577-0616.000120

1.       Summary

To examine the effect of plant densities and sowing patterns on yield and agronomical characteristics of corn (hybrid S.C.704), a field experiment was conducted at agricultural research station of Gorgan. This experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design arranged in a factorial with four replications. Forage corn experiment had four levels of plant densities (D1=65000, D2=75000, D3=85000, D4=95000) and with two planting arrangements (p1=single row and p2=double row 15 cm space apart). The results showed; there was significant difference between planting arrangement for total dry matter, number of kernel per ear, kernel per row, ear length and double row produced higher amount for all above characters. In addition, plant density had a significant effect on total dry weight, number of kernel per ear, number of row per year, total fresh weight, ear length at 0.01 probability level and with an increase in plant density amount of biomass increased. The highest forage yield was produced by 95000 plant density and 15-centimeter double row at 5% significant (93.31-ton ha-1). It might be concluded that by using double row planting pattern the inter plant competition could be decreased and higher yield might be produced.

2.       Keywords: Forage; Hybrid S.C.704; Planting Arrangement; Sowing Density

1.       Introduction

With the increase in world population, demand for food consequently will grow. It is expected that human population will increase to over 8 billion by the year 2020 and this will worsen the current scenario of food security. Improved crop productivity over the past 50 years has resulted in increasing world food supplies up to 20% per person and reducing proportion of food-insecure peoples living in developing countries from 57% to 27% of total population [1]. It is predicted that at least 10 million people will be hungry and malnourished in the world by the end of this century [1]. Thus, to reduce the food insecurity, crop production will have to be doubled, and produced in more environmentally sustainable ways [2]. This can be achieved by expanding the area of crop production, increasing per hectare yield and improving crop quality. Furthermore, during the second half of the past century, rise in per hectare crop productivity was due to improved or high yield potential [3]

The relationship between growth of corn under different planting pattern and plant density is not well understood. Many changes take place in plants to enable them to compete and maintain photosynthetic activity.  A consideration of the adaptation mechanisms by which density affects photosynthesis would aid the improvement of growth conditions and crop yield and would provide useful tools for future genetic engineering. Works in the late 1980s demonstrated that yields can be raised two to three-fold by using available improved varieties and appropriate agronomic techniques. But, these findings need to be refined, improved and tested for local climatic, soil and crop conditions [4].

These include in the aspects of to what extent of planting pattern and plant density affect the yield and morpho-physiological parameters of corn. In addition, no comprehensive database is available on corn under combination of pattern and density at north of Iran. Thus, studies are still needed to improve understanding of the effects of pattern and density for corn. Hence, the present study was to design with the following objectives

Objectives:

1.                   To determine the performance of corn at different levels of plant density.

2.                   To study the effect of planting arrangement on yield and morphological parameters of corn.

3.                   To identify how interaction of planting pattern and plant density affect yield and yield components of corn.

4.       Materials and Methods

In order to the development and management for corn in summer season, the current study was conducted to finding the effects of different planting pattern and plant density on yield and yield components of corn was investigated.

A field experiment was conducted in 2006 at Gorgan agricultural research station, Northern Iran (36ºN 54.00´ 54ºE 25.00´, 51m altitude).  The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design and replicated four times.  The experiment consisted of 8 treatments outlined as follows:

Forage corn experiment had four levels of plant densities (D1=65000, D2=75000, D3=85000, D4=95000) and with two planting arrangements (p1=single row and p2=double row 15 cm space apart). Fix distance of maize was 75 cm and the space among bushes on the furrow double row arrangement was 15 cm. Those totally were including 32 plots. Each treatment with six reasbed and 6 meters length is planting, and in doughing - milking stage for forage harvested.

All observations on dates of recording were in accordance with related statistical design, independently and complex.

Sufficient numbers of plants were sown for each treatment to facilitate destructive sampling for determining relative growth rates at the various growth stages. The selected field was under wheat cultivated, after harvesting wheat on 15 June of 2006. The considered land plowed in deep of 20-25 cm, then with cross of desk made ready for planting. At the end the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of data was performed using the software of SAS (2004) [5] by the proc. GLM procedure and significant of means between the treatments were obtained using Duncan Multiple Range Test at P<0.05.

5.       Results

The results of comparing agronomic parameters of corn at four plant densities (Tables 1 & 4) showed, that most of the corn studied characters included; total fresh weight, total dry yield, stem dry weight, leaf dry weight, husk dry weight, ear seed row, ear diameter, stem diameter and plant height were statistically significant at 5% probability level. In addition, above yield and yield components parameters with an increase in plant density increased, i.e. the highest total fresh weight, total dry yield, stem dry weight, leaf dry weight, husk dry weight with 87.40, 14.55, 5.83, 3.14 and 2.86 t/ha respectively obtained from plant density of 95000 plant/ha. While morphological parameters got from medium plant density (75000 plant/ha), in contrast plant height increased at low and high plant density.

As shown at (Tables 2 & 5), the main effect investigation of planting arrangement could not change significantly number of above treats, just increased ear dry weight 14% (from 2.72 to 3.16 t/ ha), it means the benefit of planting pattern would be appear if arrange with suitable plant density.

Interaction of planting pattern and plant density become significant at most corn studied characters. Combination treatment of planting patterns and plant density; showed: high plant density (95000 plant/ ha) in double row pattern produced the most total fresh weight (93.31 t/ ha), total dry weight (15.36 t/ ha), dry stem (6.04 t/ ha) and dry leaf (3.38 t/ ha) and number of leaf (11.91). The highest plant height (214.5 cm), ear height (113.9 cm) and stem diameter (17.76 mm) obtained from plant density of 85000 plant/ha in single row pattern, while production of dry corn at double row pattern (at the same plant densities) showed better performance. Other morphological parameters and yield components such as, ear length, ear seed row, seed in row and number of seed per ear were the best at low plant density (Table 1).

6.       Discussion

The results showed with changing planting arrangement from single row to double row plant density would be increase 15% without negative effect on yield and yield components parameters. It means at minimum and medium plant density specially on one double - row pattern, the bushes can grow better and produce a good ear

 [6-8].


Increasing the yield at high plant density due to double row pattern, may is because of closing to square planting arrangement. The yield at low plant density due to lacking number of plant per surface and at high plant density because of competition for absorption growth elements and interference of male and female’s flowers become limited [9-11].

7.       Conclusion

With considering double row planting arrangement, plant density would be increase 15% without negative effect on yield component and the yield could be increase 20%. The highest forage yield was produced by 95000 plant density and 15 centimeter double row at 5% significant (93.31 t/ha). It might be concluded that by using double row planting pattern the inter plant competition could be decreased and higher yield might be produced.


Treats/Treatment

Ear length (mm)

Total fresh weight (kg/h)

Total ear weight (kg/h)

Ear Seed Row

Seed in ear

Number of seed in ear

Total dry weight (kg/h)

Diameter Ear (mm)

Density

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 D1

19.68

77.42

20.46

14.51

25.67

432.1

12.45

40.63

 D2

19.53

80.75

21.32

14.61

26.06

439.7

13.28

42.47

 D3

18.41

85.68

21.46

13.8

23.44

385

13.22

41.06

 D4

18.41

87.4

21.1

14.22

24.18

399.1

14.55

41.07

LSD (%)

2.24

7.238

2.537

0.763

4.391

56.05

1.058

1.418

Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different at 5% level (Duncan Test)
D= Density; D1= 65000 plant ha
-1   D21= 75000 plant ha-1, D3= 85000 plant ha-1, D4= 95000 plant ha-1

 

Table 1: Mean comparison of yield and some agronomic characteristics of silage corn on deferent plant density (2 years results).

 

Treats/

Treatment

Ear length (mm)

Total fresh weight (kg/h)

Total ear weight (kg/h)

Ear seed row

Seed in ear

Number of seed in ear

Total dry weight (kg/h)

Diameter

Ear (mm)

Planting pattern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single row

19.84

78.55

19.81

14.6

26.57

442.3

12.71

41.82

Double row

18.18

87.08

22.36

13.97

23.1

485.7

14.04

40.79

LSD (%)

1.162

9.156

4.43

2.062

1.727

41.89

1.611

3.847

 

Table 2: Mean comparison of yield and some agronomic characteristics of silage corn on deferent planting pattern (2 years results).

 

Treats/Treatment

Ear length (mm)

Total fresh weight (kg/h)

Total ear weight (kg/h)

Ear Seed Row

Seed in ear

Number of seed in ear

Total dry weight (kg/h)

Diameter Ear (mm)

Pattern×Density

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P1 * D1

20.19 ab

76.88 cd

19.98cd

14.63a

27.63a

460.7a

12.16 c

47.94 ab

P1 * D2

20.53 a

75.37 d

19.60 a

15.25a

27.14a

465.7a

12.41 bc

44.26 a

P1 * D3

18.86 cd

80.46 bcd

20.02a

14.07a

24.66b

403.9ab

12.51 bc

43.54 ab

P1 * D4

19.76 abc

81.48 bcd

19.64a

14.44a

26.86a

438.9ab

13.75 abc

43.50 ab

P2 * D1

19.76 bcd

77.97cd

20.94a

14.39a

23.71bc

403.6ab

12.73 bc

38.37 c

P2 * D2

18.53 cd

86.13abc

23.04a

13.98a

24.97b

413.7ab

14.15 ab

40.67 bc

P2 * D3

17.96 de

90.90 ab

22.90a

13.92a

22.22cd

466.1a

13.93 ab

38.59 c

P2 * D4

17.05 e

93.31a

22.56a

14.00a

22.50d

459.4b

15.36 a

38.64 c

LSD (%)

1.266

10.46

4.827

2.248

1.877

79.67

1.755

2.639

Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different at 5% level (Duncan Test)
P= Planting pattern; P1= Single row, P2= Double row D= Density; D1= 65000 plant ha
-1   D21= 75000 plant ha-1, D3= 85000 plant ha-1, D4= 95000 plant ha-1

 

Table 3: Mean comparison of yield and some agronomic characteristics of silage corn on deferent planting pattern and plant density (2 years results).

 

Treats/

Treatment

Husk dry weight(Ton/ha)

Ear dry weight(Ton/ha)

Cob dry weight(Ton/ha)

Stem dry weight(Ton/ha)

Leaf dry weight(Ton/ha)

Stem diameter

(mm)

Plant height

(cm)

 

Ear height

(cm)

 

Number of leaf

 

Plant height(cm)

Earheight(cm)

Number of leaf

Density

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 D1

1.898 b

2.613 a

1.178 a

5.037 b

2.668 b

16.09 a

191.3 b

 

99.12 a

 

11.46 a

 

191.3 b

99.12 a

11.46 a

 D2

1.971 ab

3.111a

1.198 a

5.386 ab

2.804 b

16.26 a

198.9 ab

 

101.8 a

 

11.80 a

 

198.9 ab

101.8 a

11.80 a

 D3

2.046 a

3.040 a

1.146 a

5.285 ab

2.842 b

15.77 a

213.2 a

 

111.4 a

 

11.85 a

 

213.2 a

111.4 a

11.85 a

 D4

2.076 a

3.016 a

1.121 a

5.836 a

3.147a

15.72 a

207.2 ab

 

109.2 a

 

11.84 a

 

207.2 ab

109.2 a

11.84 a

LSD (%)

0.1283

0.633

0.289 a

0.559

0.174

2.26

17.75

 

15.31

 

1.185

 

17.75

15.31

1.185

P= Planting pattern; P1= Single row, P2= Double row D= Density; D1= 65000 plant/ha   D21= 75000 plant/ha, D3= 85000 plant/ha, D4= 95000 plant/ha

 

 

Table 4: Mean comparison of yield and some agronomic characteristics of silage corn on deferent plant density (2 years results).

 

Treats/Treatment

Husk dry weight(Ton/ha)

Ear dry weight(Ton/ha)

Cob dry weight(Ton/ha)

Stem dry weight(Ton/ha)

Leaf dry weight(Ton/ha)

Stem diameter(mm)

Plant height(cm)

Ear height(cm)

Number of leaf

Planting pattern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single row

2.032

2.726

1.122

5.177

2.582

16.27

203.3

107.6

11.69

Double row

1.196

3.164

1.199

5.595

3.138

15.65

202

103.2

11.78

LSD (%)

0.3646

0.394

0.6353

0.561

0.1778

1.797

7.823

3.261

0.261

 

Table 5: Mean comparison of yield and some agronomic characteristics of silage corn on deferent planting pattern (2 years results).

 

Treats/Treatment

Husk dry weight(Ton/ha)

Ear dry weight(Ton/ha)

Cob dry weight(Ton/ha)

Stem dry weight(Ton/ha)

Leaf dry weight(Ton/ha)

Stem diameter(mm)

Plant height(cm)

Ear height(cm)

Number of leaf

Density×Pattern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P1 * D1

1.865

2.46

1.119

4.991

2.431

16.38

187.6

99.94

11.48

P1 * D2

2.056

2.823

1.164

5.088

2.422

17.18

201.1

105.5

11.69

P1 * D3

2.095

2.85

1.114

4.99

2.566

17.76

214.5

113.9

11.84

P1 * D4

2.112

2.773

1.094

5.631

2.91

15.76

210.1

110.9

11.77

P2 * D1

1.931

2.776

1.236

5.082

2.905

15.8

195

98.3

11.44

P2 * D2

1.886

3.938

1.322

5.685

3.185

15.34

196.8

98.09

11.91

P2 * D3

1.996

3.231

1.178

5.572

3.118

15.77

211.9

108.9

11.86

P2 * D4

2.06

3.259

1.149

6.04

3.384

15.68

204.3

107.5

11.91

LSD (%)

0.729

0.787

0.213

0.792

0.194

1.959

15.65

3.533

0.284

P= Planting pattern; P1= Single row, P2= Double row D= Density; D1= 65000 plant/ha, D21= 75000 plant/ha, D3= 85000 plant/ha, D4= 95000 plant/ha

 

Table 6: Mean comparison of yield and some agronomic characteristics of silage corn on deferent planting pattern and plant density (2 years results).

 

1.       FAO (2003) Fertilizer use by crop in Uzbekistan. FAO, Rome, Italy.

2.       Borlaug NE, Dowswell CR (2005) Feeding a world of ten billion people: A 21st century challenge. In: Tuberosa T, Phillips RL, Gale M (eds.). Proceeding of “In the Wake of Double Helix: From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revaluation”, Bologna, Italy, Europe. Pg No: 3-24.

3.       Arous JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds Mp, Royo C (2004) Physiology of Yield and Adaptation in Wheat and Barley Breeding. In: Blum A, Nguyen H (Eds.). Physiology and Biotechnology Integration for Plant Breeding. Marcel Dekker. New York, USA. Pg No: 1-49.

4.       Qureshi AS, Qadir M, Heydari N, Turral H, Javadi A (2007) A review of management strategies for salt-prone land and water resources in Iran. International water management Institute. 30P (IWMI working paper 125) Colombo, Sri Lanka.

5.       Cary NC (2004). SAS/STAT user's guide. release. Release 9.0. 4th ed. Statistical Analysis Institute.

6.       Saberi AR, Mazaheri D, Heidari Sharif Abad H (2006) Effect of density and planting pattern on yield and some agronomic characteristics of maize KSC647. Agricultural and Natural Resources Science 1: 67-76.

7.       Proter PM, Hicks DK (1997) Corn response to row width and plant population in the northern corn-belt. J priod Agric 10: 293-300.

8.       Sprague CF, Dudly JW (1988) Corn and Corn Improvement. Third edition, Madison, Wisconsin U.S.A.

9.       Brown RH, ER Beaty, WJ Ethedge, Hages DD (1970) Influence of row width and plant population on yield of two varieties of corn (Zea mays L.) Agron J 62: 767-777.

10.    Duncan Wg (1984) A Theory to explain the relationship between corn population and grain yield. Crop Sci 24: 1141-1145.

11.    JA Lutz, HM Comper, Jones CD (1971) Row spacing and plant Population effects on corn yield. Agron J 63: 12-14.

© by the Authors & Gavin Publishers. This is an Open Access Journal Article Published Under Attribution-Share Alike CC BY-SA: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License. With this license, readers can share, distribute, download, even commercially, as long as the original source is properly cited. Read More.

International Journal of Genomics and Data Mining

pola slot gacor zeusslot gacor mudah jackpotslot sugar rushslot mahjong thailandmahjong scatter naga hitamslot mahjong ways 2slot pg soft gacorprediksi judi bola sbobetparlay sbobet euro 2024rtp pg softbocoran rtp dan pola gacoragen bola euro terpercayatrik slot mahjong ways 2trik menaklukkan slot mahjong waysbandar bola terpercayaslot gacor gampang menangslot olympus 1000jam gacor pragmaticslot gacor mudah maxwinagen judi bola resmimahjong ways pola jitu maxwinpola gacor starlight princessslot server kambojarahasia scatter hitam mahjong waysturbo spin slot mahjongrtp slot candy villagepola gacor mahjong wins terbaruslot server luar terbarurtp slot olympusslot mahjong waysrtp sweet bonanzaagen sbobet euro 2024judi bola parlay sbobetslot gates of olympus jepe maxwinrtp slot gacorslot starlight christmas pragmatic