Twin or Narrow-Row Planting Patterns versus Conventional Planting in Forage Maize Production in the Eastern Mediterranean
Producing forage maize (Zea mays L.) in twin-row planting pattern has been attempted in past years. This research was performed to determine effects of planting patterns and densities on yields of forage maize hybrids. We also examined other plant characteristics associated with forage yield under second crop conditions in Hatay, East Mediterranean region of Turkey, during 2003 and 2004. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design in a split-split-plot arrangement with three replications. The planting patterns of twin row (55:20 cm), conventional row (75 cm) and narrow row (50 cm) were main plots, the plant densities (80,000, 100,000 and 120,000 plants ha −1) were split-plots, and the hybrids (PR-1550, MAVERIK and DK-585) were split-split plots. Forage and dry matter yields were significantly affected by planting patterns, plant densities and maize hybrids. Our results revealed the advantage of twin-row planting pattern over conventional and narrow row plantings at all plant densities. Twin row planting out-yielded conventional row (16% more forage and 10.2% more dry matter yield) and narrow-row (7.9% more forage and 5.9% more dry matter yield) plantings. Twin-row planting pattern may be a profitable production technique for forage maize producers.
Keywordsforage yield maize narrow row plant density planting pattern twin-row
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cox, W.J., Otis, D.J. 1993. Grain and silage yield responses of commercial maize hybrids to plant densities. Agron. Abstracts 1993, ASA, Madison, WI, p. 132.Google Scholar
- Duncan, W.G. 1975. Maize. In: Even, L.T. (ed.), Crop Physiology: Some Case Histories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar
- Hoeft, R.G., Nafziger, E.D., Johnson, R.R., Aldrich, S.R. 2000. Modern Maize and Soybean Production, MCSP Publ., Savoy, IL, p. 353.Google Scholar
- Larson, W.E., Hanway, J.J. 1977. Maize production. In: Sprague, G.F. (ed.), Maize and Maize Improvement. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI., pp. 625–669.Google Scholar
- Lewis, A.L., Cox, W.J., Cherney, J.H. 2004. Hybrid, maturity and cutting height interactions on corn forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 96:267–274.Google Scholar
- Olson, R.A., Sander, D.H. 1988. Corn production. In: Sprague, G.F., Dudley, J.W. (eds), Maize and Maize Improvement, 3rd edition, #18 Agron. Series, America. Soc. Agron., Madison, pp. 659–662.Google Scholar
- Paszkiewicz, S. 1996. Narrow row spacing influence on maize yield. In: Proc. Maize and Sorghum Res. Conf., 51 st, Chicago, IL. 11–12 Dec. 1996. Am. Seed Trade Assoc., Washington, DC, pp. 130–138.Google Scholar
- Roth, G.C. 1996. Maize Grain and Silage Yield Responses to Narrow Rows. Agronomy Abstracts, ASA, Madison, WI., p. 128.Google Scholar
- Scarsbrook, C.B., Doss, B.D. 1973. How plant populations and row widths affect light penetration, yield, and plant characteristics of irrigated corn. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 450.Google Scholar